The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2002 Planning Board Apr-Jun Minutes FINAL Draft to Clerk June 21,2002 Approved July 2, 2002 To Clerk July 3,2002 Minutes of the Regular Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD 7:00 p.m., Tenth Floor, Council Chambers Lansing City Hall Tuesday, June 18, 2002 1. OPENING SESSION The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. by Chairman Frederick. A. Roll call. Present: Frederick, Cordill, Keene, Ruge, Smith. B. Staff Attending: Ruff, Stachowiak, Rieske, Stanich. C. Excused absences: Ms. Foster, Ms. Patrick. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mr. Frederick requested an amendment to the agenda. He stated that under New Business there would be excused absence requests for Ms. Keene on July 161h and for Mr. Ruge on July 2nd. It was also decided to change the Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting to July 16t" prior to the Planning Board meeting. It was moved by Ms. Keene, supported by Mr. Smith to approve the agenda as amended. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (5-0). 3. COMMUNICATIONS A. Letter of opposition regarding ACT-9-2002 from Friends of Durant Park. 4. HEARINGS A. ACT-9-2002, N. Washington Sq. - Shiawassee to Schoolcraft, LCC Request for ROW Vacation Lansing Community College requests that the City vacate the Washington Avenue right-of-way (ROW) through the campus, between Shiawassee Street and Schoolcraft Avenue. By City Council resolution on August 13, 1973, the ROW was closed to vehicular traffic and allowed to be incorporated into the campus design. This is not a matter of rezoning. Bill Rieske gave a brief overview. PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES June 18, 2002, Page 2 Mr. Ruge inquired about Lansing Community College's (LCC) development of the right-of-way. Mr. Rieske stated the Planning Office is currently reviewing the LCC Master Plan dated October/November 2001. Mr. Ruff stated that the LCC application indicated concern that future administrations or councils might take resolution and re-open the right-of- way. Barbara Larson, resident of 6100 Coleman Road, East Lansing, and Vice President of Administrative Services and Finance at LCC, stated that also attending with her tonight is Mr. Bill Darr, Director of Facilities Planning and Operation. In 1973, Lansing City Council unanimously approved the closing of Washington Avenue to the vehicular traffic so that Washington Avenue, now called Washington Mall, could be incorporated into the college's campus design. After the closing of the mall, the college constructed the Gannon Vocational Technical building which includes the parking ramp. The mall has become an important focal point for the campus, a site for student and community events that together form the fabric of what a college campus signifies. Each summer the outdoor amphitheater on the college's mall is the site of several performing arts events that attract thousands of community members. The annual Cinco de Mayo and Carribean festivals and the recent rally honoring the college's softball national champions have filled the mall with students, faculty, staff, and community members. In 2002, LCC's Board of Trustees approved a long range Facilities Master Plan. There was input from the Downtown Neighborhood Association, City of Lansing Planning Department as well as faculty, staff, and students. As a result of this plan, the college is about to embark on a $43 million building and renovation project on the downtown campus. One of the goals of the Master Plan is to compress college functions into the core of the campus reducing the college's footprint downtown. The second goal of the Master Plan is to improve parking. The completed Master Plan will move 400 parked cars at peak times by relocating student and staff parking demands to functions planned for the college's new Delta site. A new health building with a projected budget of $19 million is to be constructed along the west side of Washington Mall. Renovations to the Gannon Vocational Technical building which sits along the east side of Washington Mall will follow completion of the health building. The new health building is to be sited along Washington Mall, not on Washington Mall. Construction will not impact the utility easements currently available to Ameritech, Board of Water and Light, and others requiring access to services. There have been some inquiries about the beautiful rose garden which now sits to the west of where the new health building is planned. College PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES June 18, 2002, Page 3 staff have already spoken to members of the Rose Society who maintain the rose garden. The college will work with society members to relocate the rose garden to an appropriate alternative site on campus so that it is out of harms way during construction. The vacation of Washington Mail is a spring board to LCC's downtown commitment and development. The college has been around for 45 years and will be here for at least another 45 years. Phase three of the Master Plan calls for the expansion of Dart Auditorium which will bring even more people to the Washington Mall area. In addition to the construction and renovation of buildings, the college will be expanding the amphitheater by adding a roof, additional lawn seating for performances, and other activities. The college's commitment to the City is evident. Most recently the college doubled its boundaries for the employee home ownership program. Now employees may receive a $5,000 down payment to purchase and live in a home on any one of a hundred and twenty-five blocks surrounding the college. The college wishes to proceed with the construction plans with the assurance that Washington Mall will not be open to vehicle traffic now or in the future. Mr. Ruge inquired about the location of the new health building. Ms. Larson stated that the new health building is planned where the administration building now sits, which is along Washington Mall. Mr. Darr stated that it is just north of the Turner House. A general discussion ensued. Seeing no one else wishing to speak on this matter, Mr. Frederick referred ACT-9-2002 to the next Urban Development Committee meeting scheduled for Tuesday, June 25, 2002, at 4:00 p.m., 316 N. Capitol Ave., Department Conference Room. 5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each) Seeing no one wishing to address the Board, Mr. Frederick closed the public comment period. 6. RECESS was not taken by the Board. 7. BUSINESS SESSION A. Minutes for Approval Ms. Keene moved; seconded by Mr. Ruge to approve the minutes of May 21, 2002 without corrections. On a voice vote, motion carried (5-0), the minutes of May 21, 2002 were APPROVED. PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES June 18, 2002, Page 4 Ms. Keene moved; seconded by Mr. Smith to approve the minutes of June 4, 2002 without corrections. On a voice vote, motion carried (5-0), the minutes of June 4, 2002 were APPROVED. B. Committee Reports 1. ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE, Mr. Ruge, Chair Mr. Ruge reported that the committee lacked a quorum and therefore, he referred Z-8-2002, Z-9-2002, and Z-10-2002 to the Committee of the Whole. So ordered by Chairman Frederick. Next meeting, Tuesday, July 16, 2002 at 5:30 p.m. City Council Conference Room, Tenth Floor, City Hall 124 W. Michigan Avenue. 2. URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Mr. Rieske reported. Next meeting, Tuesday, June 25, 2002, at 4:00 p.m. 316 N. Capitol Ave., Department Conference Room. Mr. Ruge made a motion; seconded by Ms. Cordill to dissolve into the Committee of the Whole. On a voice vote, the motion carried. 3a. Committee of the Whole, Mr. Smith, Chair a. Z-8-2002, 5950 S. ML King Jr. Blvd., Rezoning from "E-2" Local Shopping District to "F" Commercial District This is a request by John Daly to rezone the property located at 5950 S. ML King Jr. Blvd., more particularly described as: Lots 10 & 11, Webster Farm Subdivision No. 1, City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan from "E-2" Local Shopping District to "F" Commercial District. If approved, the applicant intends to have outdoor sales of trailers and sheds at 5950 S. ML King Jr. Blvd. Sue Stachowiak gave a brief overview. PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES June 18, 2002, Page 5 Mr. Ruge stated that he visited the site. There were a lot of residential properties farther north than the south, and a lot of commercial properties in the area as well. Mr. Frederick stated that the property used to be a gas station and inquired about the tanks being underground. A general discussion ensued. A discussion ensued regarding the possibility of a billboard on the property. Mr. Ruff stated that in the minutes, there was testimony at the public hearing that the outdoor sales would keep the store viable. The store is no longer located in the building. A general discussion ensue. Mr. Frederick stated that when he drove by the site he noticed that there was a fair amount of commercial property in the surrounding area. However, he stated that it is a fairly vibrant residential neighborhood, and although he is not concerned with the intensity of selling trailers or cigarettes, he is concerned with the intensity that could result in the future that would affect the neighborhood. Mr. Ruge inquired about the kinds of uses for the property. A discussion ensued. Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Ms. Keene to recommend denial of Z-8-2002, 5950 S. MIL King Jr. Blvd., Rezoning from "E-2" Local Shopping District to "F" Commercial District. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (5-0). b. Z-9-2002, 724 N. Walnut, "C" Residential District to "DM- 3" Residential District This is a request by Ferris Development to rezone the property at 724 N. Walnut, more specifically described as: S 2 R of E 47 FT & S 44 FT & S44 FT of W 118FT Lot 9 Block 56, Original Plat, City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan. from "C" Residential to "DM-3" Residential District. The purpose of the rezoning is to bring the property into compliance with the Zoning Ordinance for a 4-unit structure at 724 N. Walnut. PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES June 18, 2002, Page 6 Sue Stachowiak gave a brief overview. Ms. Cordill inquired about the Class "A" Nonconforming status. A general discussion ensued. Mr. Ruge inquired about financing, and the number of units allowed for tax credit financing. A general discussion ensued. Mr. Frederick inquired about the cost of the property being rehabilitated into a single family home. A general discussion ensued. He stated that he understands the importance of avoiding a spot zoning. Having looked at the property from an inexperienced eye, it looks like the structure of the building could be rehabilitated and would certainly add to the neighborhood if it were. He doubts if it would be rehabilitated into a single family home or a two unit because no one would pay that kind of money for the structure. Whoever was doing the work could not get their money out of it. There would not be that many people in the area who would be willing to rehabilitate the building and get it into the kind of shape that Ferris plans on doing. Judging from the track record of the current owner, the building would deteriorate even further. While the building looks kind of shoddy at this point, it is not a complete wreck compared to some of the places he has seen. He does not see the building improving at all under any circumstances. He believes it will get worse and turn into a boarded up old house. This would put more pressure on the neighborhood than with Ferris owning and rehabilitating it into a four unit. A general discussion ensued. Mr. Smith inquired about the historic significance of the property. A discussion ensued. Mr. Frederick inquired about the availability of historic funds. Mr. Ruff stated there are funds available through the CDBG programs that include using those dollars for historic preservation purposes. A discussion ensued. Ms. Cordill inquired about Ferris Development being the owner. Mr. VanZee stated that Ferris Development has an offer to purchase on the property. Ms. Cordill inquired about what would happen if the Board says no. Mr. VanZee stated that Ferris Development would not purchase the property and that this has been the only way that Ferris has been able to find the resources to rehab the property through tax credits. PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES June 18, 2002, Page 7 Mr. Smith inquired about Ferris Development considering the possibility of credits for historic preservation. Mr. VanZee stated that Ferris always considers it and that once they have the tax credits, it is a little easier to go this route and Ferris always rehabs back to historic standards on these types of properties. Ferris received a letter of commitment from the Development Office supporting Ferris' request in purchasing and rehabing these properties. The Development Office is committing dollars to these properties also. Mr. Ruge stated that he would love to see money put into this property. If another landlord came to the Board and asked to do this and if it wasn't Ferris, the Board would not be arguing about it, and would say sorry it cannot be done. The City has a chance of a lifetime to get these houses fixed up and it should be taken. However, in doing so, it would go against a couple of points in the Master Plan. A discussion ensued regarding "DM-Y zoning. Mr. Smith stated that he sympathizes about preserving the building. However, it would open too many doors. Mr. Ruge stated that the Master Plan says this is not the direction of the neighborhood. The neighborhood needs to go to a less intense use. The Board needs to follow the Master Plan. Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick to recommend denial of Z-9-2002, 724 N. Walnut, "C" Residential District to "DM-3" Residential District. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (5-0). C. Z-10-2002, 819 N. Walnut, "C" Residential District to "DM-3" Residential District This is a request by Ferris Development to rezone the property at 724 N. Walnut, more specifically described as: S 2 R of E 47 FT & S 44 FT & S44 FT of W 118FT Lot 9 Block 56, Original Plat, City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan. from "C" Residential to "DM-Y Residential District. The purpose of the rezoning is to bring the property into PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES June 18, 2002, Page 8 compliance with the Zoning Ordinance for a 4-unit structure at 724 N. Walnut. Sue Stachowiak gave a brief overview. Mr. Smith inquired about Class "A" Nonconforming status. A discussion ensued. Mr. Ruge stated that this plans takes a direction that is opposite of the Master Plan. Ms. Cordill stated that she had calculated the density. For the currently zoning and to be consistent, it is not even 2 units per acre. It is 1.75 units and the existing are 4 units. The density cannot support 2 units. Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick to recommend denial of Z-10-2002, 819 N. Walnut, "C" Residential District to "DM-3" Residential District. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (5-0). Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Mr. Ruge to arise from the Committee of the Whole. On a voice vote, the motion carried. Ms. Stachowiak stated that because only five members were present, these will go to City Council without a formal recommendation. Mr. VanZee stated that Ferris appreciates the Board recognizing what they are doing. Ferris was reacting to a request from the neighbors in this community. Ferris will continue what they are doing and this will not be a setback. Ferris' mission is to provide affordable housing and do it right in the City of Lansing. Ferris appreciates the Board's support in the past, and looks forward to continued support in the future. 3b. Committee of the Whole, Mr. Smith, Chair a. Z-8-2002, 5950 S. MIL King Jr. Blvd., Rezoning from "E-2" Local Shopping District to "F" Commercial District This is a request by John Daly to rezone the property located at 5950 S. ML King Jr. Blvd., more particularly described as: Lots 10 & 11, Webster Farm Subdivision No. 1, City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES June 18, 2002, Page 9 from "E-2" Local Shopping District to "F" Commercial District. If approved, the applicant intends to have outdoor sales of trailers and sheds at 5950 S. ML King Jr. Blvd. Referencing the Committee of the Whole discussion on this matter and concurring with the Committee of the Whole action, Mr. Smith made a motion, seconded by Mr. Ruge to recommend denial of Z-8-2002, 5950 S. ML King Jr. Blvd., Rezoning from "E-2" Local Shopping District to "F" Commercial District. Frederick . Ave Smith . Ave Cordill . Ave Ruge . Ave Keene .Ave On a Roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 5; Nays: 0; carried; DENIED. b. Z-9-2002, 724 N. Walnut, "C" Residential District to "DM- 3" Residential District This is a request by Ferris Development to rezone the property at 724 N. Walnut, more specifically described as: S 2 R of E 47 FT & S 44 FT & S44 FT of W 118FT Lot 9 Block 56, Original Plat, City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan. from "C" Residential to "DM-3" Residential District. The purpose of the rezoning is to bring the property into compliance with the Zoning Ordinance for a 4-unit structure at 724 N. Walnut. Referencing the Committee of the Whole discussion on this matter and concurring with the Committee of the Whole action, Mr. Smith made a motion, seconded by Mr. Ruge to recommend denial of Z-9-2002, 724 N. Walnut, "C" Residential District to "DM-3" Residential District. Frederick . Ave Smith . Ave Cordill . Ave Ruge . Ave Keene .Ave On a Roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 5; Nays: 0; carried; DENIED. PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES June 18, 2002, Page 10 C. Z-10-2002, 819 N. Walnut, "C" Residential District to "DM-3" Residential District This is a request by Ferris Development to rezone the property at 724 N. Walnut, more specifically described as: S 2 R of E 47 FT & S 44 FT & S44 FT of W 118FT Lot 9 Block 56, Original Plat, City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan. from "C" Residential to "DM-3" Residential District. The purpose of the rezoning is to bring the property into compliance with the Zoning Ordinance for a 4-unit structure at 724 N. Walnut. Referencing the Committee of the Whole discussion on this matter and concurring with the Committee of the Whole action, Mr. Smith made a motion, seconded by Mr. Ruge to recommend denial of Z-10-2002, 819 N. Walnut, "C" Residential District to "DM- 3" Residential District. Frederick . Ave Smith . Ave Cordill . Ave Ruge • Ave Keene .Ave On a Roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 5; Nays: 0; carried; DENIED. 4. Executive Committee - None. C. REPORT FROM PLANNING MANAGER 1. The planned residential development on Forest Road at US-127 is now underway and all permits have been issued. 2. City Council actions: ACT-8-2002 (referred to City Council next week), ACT-23-2001 (recommended approval), Z-19-2002 (first committee recommended denial; second committee recommended approval), Z-3-2001 (public hearing set for July 81h). 3. Certificate of Appreciation for Mr. Smith. D. Pending Items: Future action required 1. Zoning and Ordinance Committee a. Z-1-1998, 1223 N.Turner St.,"H" Light Industrial District to"G-1" Business District(Tabled February 11, 1998) b. Z-5-1998,401-407 E. Grand River,"F"Commercial District to"G-1" Business District(Tabled June 10, 1998) C. Z-8-2000,3901 S. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd.,"F"Commercial to"H"Light Industrial District(Tabled June 14,2000) PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES June 18, 2002, Page 11 d. Z-15-2000, 301 W. Lenawee Street, Professional Office to"G-1" Business District(Tabled January 17,2001) e. P-1-2001,Tentative Preliminary Plat,Wexford Woods (Tabled June 13, May 9, 2001) f. PRD-2-2001,"Crystal Woods", Planned Residential Neighborhood (Tabled August 15, 2001) g. SLU-6-2001, 517-519 E. Grand River Ave., Church in"F-1" Commercial District (Tabled November 14, 2001) h. SLU-8-2001, 3000 W. Miller Road,Additional Parking for an Existing Church (Tabled November 14,2001) i. SLU-3-2002,2710 N. Grand River Ave., Church in the"F Commercial District& "J" Parking District(Tabled May 15, 2002) 2. Urban Development Committee a. Act-9-2000,201 E. Grand River Avenue, Proj. Sign Over ROW (Tabled June 27,2000) b. Act-2-2002, Lansing Housing Commission Property, 310 Seymour,Acquisition for public purposes (Tabled February 26,2002) 3. Committee of the Whole 4. Planning Board 8. NEW BUSINESS Ms. Keene requested an excused absence for the July 16" meeting. Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Mr. Smith to approve an excused absence request for Ms. Keene for the July 161h meeting. On a voice vote, motion carried (5-0). Mr. Ruge requested an excused absence for the July 2"d meeting. Mr. Smith made a motion, seconded by Ms. Cordill to approve an excused absence request for Mr. Ruge for the July 2nd meeting. On a voice vote, motion carried (5-0). Mr. Ruge will not be attending the Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting in July. Mr. Ruff suggested moving the Z&O meeting to the evening of July 161h before the Planning Board meeting. A discussion ensued. 9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON Mr. Frederick stated that he would feel better if he were able to see more than just red tags going up on deteriorated buildings. He would like to see the City become more active in getting to structures that are deteriorating before they reach the stage where they need a huge amount of money put into them. Mr. Ruff responded. Mr. Frederick stated he would feel much better if he saw some type of program that would work with homeowners and landlords 10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS Mr. Smith thanked the Board for allowing him the opportunity to work with them. He has really enjoyed it and will miss everyone. There is a certain degree of gratification that comes from being able to go around Lansing and actually see some concrete changes that have taken place in the five years that he has been on the Board knowing that he has had some part in it. PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES June 18, 2002, Page 12 11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS Mr. Ruge inquired about the new church going in across from the City Market, and if a special land use was required. Mr. Frederick inquired about Van Houten's. A general discussion ensued. A discussion ensued regarding the Richter's Gardens site. 12. ADJOURNMENT - Meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James A. Ruff, Secretary, Planning Board PB Minutes.061802.wpd Approved as written 6-18-02 Draft to Clerk June 11,2002 Approved June 18,2002 To Clerk June 19,2002 Minutes of the Regular Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD 7:00 p.m., Tenth Floor, Council Chambers Lansing City Hall Tuesday, June 4, 2002 1. OPENING SESSION The meeting was called to order at 7:01 p.m. by Chairman Frederick. A. Roll call. Present: Frederick, Foster, Cordill, Keene, Patrick, Ruge, Smith. B. Staff Attending: Ruff, Stachowiak, Rieske. C. Excused absences: None. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA It was moved by Mr. Smith, supported by Ms. Keene to approve the agenda. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (7-0). 3. COMMUNICATIONS A. Card was given to the Board members regarding the Festival of the Sun in North Lansing Old Town June 22, 2002 from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. 4. HEARINGS A. Z-7-2002, S. Cedar St., "A" Residential District to "F" Commercial District This is a request by Volunteers of America to rezone a 2 acre segment of a Consumers Power right-of-way, located on the east side of S. Cedar St. between Armstrong Rd. and E. Northrup St. and more particularly described as: The West 600 feet of the North 165 feet of the South 825 feet of the Southeast 114 of the Northeast 114 of Section 4, T3N, R2W. from "A" Residential District to "F" Commercial District. The purpose of this request is to allow for the creation of a used car lot (car auction). PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES June 4, 2002, Page 2 Sue Stachowiak stated that a letter was received from the applicant to withdraw this case. Volunteers of America was not able to come to an agreement with Consumers Power to allow for a car lot on the lot as proposed. Mr. Ruff stated that Consumers has sold the transmission lines and have made some changes. Those changes have affected Volunteers of America. Mr. Ruge inquired about a non-motorized trail through this area that was listed in the Parks and Recreation Department comments. Mr. Rieske stated there was a discussion about a possibility of a non-motorized trail. The southwest area Master Plan calls for parks and open space in this area. It is not owned by the City and is not currently a park. The utility corridor runs into the southeast planning area and this designates it right of way as a utility. At the Regional level, there have been discussions regarding continuous non-motorized paths and river trails extending the length of the river in the Tri-county region. There has been a discussion about utility rights of way and there is nothing in an approved plan. B. Z-8-2002, 5950 S. ML King Jr. Blvd., Rezoning from "E-2" Local Shopping District to "F" Commercial District This is a request by John Daly to rezone the property located at 5950 S. ML King Jr. Blvd., more particularly described as: Lots 10 & 11 , Webster Farm Subdivision No. 1 , City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan. PPN 33-01-05-05-306-091 from "E-2" Local Shopping District to "F" Commercial District. If approved, the applicant intends to have outdoor sales of trailers and sheds at 5950 S. ML King Jr. Blvd. Sue Stachowiak gave a brief overview. A discussion ensued regarding the rezoning of the property in 1971. John Cusick, resident of 4606 Arden Road, stated that he is representing the applicant. Most of the trailer and sheds being discussed are new products and there will not be any assembling of these products. Most people who are looking for trailers are traveling to Elkhart, Indiana. This would be a benefit to the area to have people purchase products from them. There will be 10 trailers and 6 sheds and plenty of adequate space for these. There will also be plenty of customer parking. Closing of Webster street can be done and there will still be plenty of parking so the customers can make their way back to Martin Luther King Blvd. This property has been used for a retail shop and there is no need to change anything. Trailers and sheds will be added to the business. Most of the sheds the company will carry will be used for trailer parks and community PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES June 4, 2002, Page 3 housing so the residents will have some kind of correlation in the trailer parks. Most of the people he has spoken with in the trailer business are in favor of the idea because a 5' x 8' can be built and be uniform in the trailer parks around the area. He would appreciate the assistance because he believes it would an asset to make the business profitable. Ms. Patrick stated that she visited the property last night. Currently the building is backed right up to the lot line. Mr. Cusick stated on the property there is approximately 42' that extends beyond the building. The fence up close to the building is not the property line. Ms. Patrick inquired about the thick stand of trees and if they would remain. Mr. Cusick saw no need to move them. Ms. Patrick inquired if the current building would be removed. Mr. Cusick stated the building would remain and be used as an office. A discussion ensued regarding the sizes of the trailers and sheds. Seeing no one else wishing to speak on this matter, Mr. Frederick referred Z-8-2002 to the next Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting scheduled for Wednesday, June 12, 2002, at 4:00 p.m., 316 N. Capitol Ave., Department Conference Room. C. Z-9-2002, 724 N. Walnut, "C" Residential District to "DM-3" Residential District This is a request by Ferris Development to rezone the property at 724 N. Walnut, more specifically described as: S 2 R of E 47 FT & S 44 FT & S44 FT of W 118 FT Lot 9 Block 56, Original Plat, City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan. from "C" Residential to "DM-3" Residential District. The purpose of the rezoning is to bring the property into compliance with the Zoning Ordinance for a 4-unit structure at 724 N. Walnut. Sue Stachowiak gave a brief overview. A discussion ensued regarding a variance, side yard setbacks, and a lot coverage issue for the property. Roger Newcomb, Executive Director of Ferris Development and resident 720 N. Walnut, asked the Board to consider approving the rezoning application. Ferris Development wants to use of the Tax Credit Financing to rehabilitate the property. One of the requirements is that the zoning be conforming because of some language in the nonconforming zoning status. The variances will be addressed next week. With this structure there will be approximately $175,000 of rehabilitation work and PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES June 4, 2002, Page 4 will be using funding from the City of Lansing Home Funds, Low Income Tax Credits and bank financing to do this project. The property located at 819 N. Walnut is another $135,000 worth of rehabilitations. The garage will be demolished. He gave a brief overview of the property located at 724 N. Walnut. He asked the Board for their help with both the business and neighborhood. Ms. Cordill inquired about the "C" residential zoning of the property and if it would be feasible to rehabilitate the property with less units than proposed. Mr. Newcomb stated yes but the cost would increase exponentially. Ms. Foster commended Ferris Development for the work they have done in Lansing. Ferris Development has really helped a lot of properties that no other person would have taken. Ron Van Zee, Construction Manager for Ferris Development, stated that he had pictures of 724 N. Walnut and 819 N. Walnut. Both of these properties have been deemed to be listed or eligible for listing in the National Historic Register and are a part of the old fourth ward. When he first walked through both properties, he was quite hesitant to assume responsibility. Ferris Development would like to do a full rehabilitation of the property. He gave a brief overview and stated that Ferris Development would meet all of the required historic standards. It would be better than housing quality or code compliance standards as is done with all their properties. The properties would be rebuilt to match the historic character of when they were built. A discussion ensued regarding the porch of a house located at Pennsylvania and Vine. Seeing no one else wishing to speak on this matter, Mr. Frederick referred Z-9-2002 to the next Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting scheduled for Wednesday, June 12, 2002, at 4:00 p.m., 316 N. Capitol Ave., Department Conference Room. D. Z-10-2002, 819 N. Walnut, "C" Residential District to "DM-3" Residential District This is a request by Ferris Development to rezone the property at 819 N. Walnut, more specifically described as: S 3 R of E 7 R, Lot 3 Block 48, Original Plat, City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan. from "C" Residential to "DM-3" Residential District. The purpose of the rezoning is to bring the 4-unit structure at 819 N. Walnut into compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES June 4, 2002, Page 5 Sue Stachowiak gave a brief overview. A discussion ensued regarding parking. Ron Van Zee, Construction Manager for Ferris Development, stated that both of the properties' front yards are in line with the surrounding properties. He gave an overview of the garage and furnace situations at the 819 N. Walnut property. Ferris Development would meet all of the required historic, housing quality and code compliance standards with complete electrical, plumbing, and mechanical systems as well as the structural aspects of the house. A discussion ensued regarding the gravel driveway that extends to the alley. Ferris Development will be implementing hard surfacing. He stated that when Ferris Development acquires properties as tax credit properties, they are required to maintain ownership and manage the properties indefinitely. The properties cannot be sold and Ferris Development will take care of them. Seeing no one else wishing to speak on this matter, Mr. Frederick referred Z-10-2002 to the next Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting scheduled for Wednesday, June 12, 2002, at 4:00 p.m., 316 N. Capitol Ave., Department Conference Room. 5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each) Seeing no one wishing to address the Board, Mr. Frederick closed the public comment period. 6. SPECIAL PRESENTATION - LA 445 Design Work Mr. Rieske stated that Ms. Sissi P. Foster has structured her L.A. 445 class on Advanced Project Design to focus on Lansing projects and to benefit our Master Plan Project. She has worked with the Planning Office on the structure of the course, and the deliverables the City would receive. The City was represented in this process by Ms. Foster, who also provided pro bono assistance to the Planning Office in developing the overall work plan for the Master Plan Project. The Planning Office staff have been involved in determining the students' deliverables, and have served as resource persons to the students and instructor on an as-needed basis. Ms. Foster presented the LA 445 Design Work project. The class has 17 fifth- year L.A. students, each of whom has done an individual design project within the City of Lansing. Each student provided a vision for the tri-county region, the entire city, and a 9 block (±) area with all the land uses contained in that area. In this manner, projects cover various parts of the City, involving industrial, PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES June 4, 2002, Page 6 commercial, and residential components, and portray various visions with physical design solutions that blend both the natural and created environment with people and their needs. Students have taken their design projects from initial conception to the final designs, and provide design development documentation which takes their projects (specific sites in the City of Lansing) through a progressive series of steps that result in a continually increasing level of detailed design solutions. Ms. Foster explained that as a result of this course, the City will receive (1) a compact disk (CD) version of each bound student report, which will contain final text and graphics, regarding the problem statement, background research, site design, design development, and final design, (2) a Power Point presentation of each report, and (3) a final drawing of each project, suitable for public display. Mr. Rieske explained that this project pertains to two phases of the Master Plan Project: Phase III (Visioning) and Phase IV (Alternative Development Scenarios). The City will receive numerous visions of Lansing's future, along with display quality prototype designs, supported by the background research. Each of the projects contain a citywide and neighborhood scope, as well as a regional context. These products can be used during the Master Plan Project to stimulate discussion on a shared vision for Lansing, and the consideration of alternative solutions. Mr. Rieske stated that project drawings and reports are in the conference room, and the Board members and the public are welcome to review them. This can be done either during the recess, or if the recess is omitted, then at the end of the meeting. 7. RECESS was not taken by the Board. 8. BUSINESS SESSION A. Minutes for Approval: None. B. Committee Reports 1 . ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE Next meeting, Wednesday, June 12, 2002 at 4:00 p.m. 316 N. Capitol Ave., Department Conference Room. 2. URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Next meeting, Tuesday, June 25, 2002, at 4:00 p.m. 316 N. Capitol Ave., Department Conference Room. PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES June 4, 2002, Page 7 Ms. Keene made a motion; seconded by Ms. Foster to dissolve into the Committee of the Whole. On a voice vote, the motion carried. Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Ms. Keene to remove Act-32-2001 from the table. On a voice vote, the motion carried. 3a. Committee of the Whole, Mr. Smith, Chair a. ACT-32-2001, NW corner of Dunckel & Cavanaugh, Acquire for Street ROW Intersection Bill Rieske gave a brief overview. Ms. Dykema, Public Service Department, was present to answer questions of the Board. A discussion ensued regarding the truck traffic and proposed speed limit through this area. Ms. Dykema stated that the current speed is 35 mph. Mr. Frederic stated there is no posted speed limit sign in this area. Ms. Dykema stated that truck routes are established by ordinance and the streets are listed in the ordinance. In order to add this to the truck map, the City would need to go before City Council to have it added to the ordinance. Trucks travel all the time on streets that are not on the truck route. Once off the truck route, trucks would need to take the most direct route to their destination. A discussion ensued regarding truck drivers familiarizing themselves with the truck route lists. A discussion ensued regarding traffic safety in this area. A discussion ensued regarding 11' lanes on Dunckel Road. Cavanaugh Road has 10'-11' lanes. A discussion ensued regarding a larger design of the Dunckel/Cavanaugh Road design. A discussion ensued regarding a meeting with the neighborhood to receive input on the design of the road. Ms. Dykema stated that she has talked with 4 or 5 residents in the area. Ms. Patrick stated Forest View Citizens Association and Old Everett Neighborhood Organization should be notified on this type of issue. A discussion ensued regarding traffic calming measures. PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES June 4, 2002, Page 8 Ms. Foster made a motion, seconded by Ms. Keene to recommend approval of ACT-32-2001, NW corner of Dunckel & Cavanaugh, Acquire for Street ROW Intersection with the following conditions: (1) traffic calming measures be implemented to include lane narrowing for traffic but favorably designed for bikes, (2) reduce and post the speed limit to 30 mph on Cavanaugh Road, (3) increase the number of street trees along Cavanaugh Road for perceptual traffic calming and use existing trees as much as possible from the property being purchased, (4) add extra marking on bike lanes and/or greater separation of bike lanes from travel lanes, (5) prohibit trucks, (6) neighborhood organizations should be brought into process to comment on design soonest including a side walk option for the neighbors, (7) average road width to be 11' or narrower if possible, (8) Dunckel Road be designed to have two through lanes and additional lanes dedicated as a deceleration lane for convenience store/gas station complex and Trappers Cove apartment complex and a left turn center lane for these uses. On a voice vote, the motion carried. Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Ms. Foster to arise from the Committee of the Whole. On a voice vote, the motion carried. 3b. Committee of the Whole, Mr. Smith, Chair a. ACT-32-2001, NW corner of Dunckel & Cavanaugh, Acquire for Street ROW Intersection The City Engineer is requesting to acquire property to realign the intersection of Dunckel and Cavanaugh roads. Increased development in the Dunckel Road area has resulted in greater traffic congestion, including residential development north of Jolly Road in the City of Lansing, and commercial, industrial, office and school traffic south of Jolly in Delhi Township. The SE Area Comprehensive Plan designates the entire area between Dunckel, Jolly, and Collins Road (the eastern city limits) for multi-family residential (15-20 units/acre), professional office, and commercial. Delhi Township has a growing office/industrial park south of Jolly, served by Dunckel and Pine Tree Roads. This development places increased pressure on the Jolly Road/US 127 interchange, which is served by Dunckel Road. Dunckel is five lanes in width at US 127, and narrows to two lanes as it proceeds west and south toward Jolly. Turning movements to and from the Trappers Cove complex and Cavanaugh Road are difficult during peak traffic periods. PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES June 4, 2002, Page 9 Cavanaugh Road, which serves as a connector between Aurelius Road and Dunckel, also faces increased pressure, especially due to restrictions in the Clemens Street neighborhood at the north end of Aurelius Road. As a result, Dunckel is proposed for widening from two lanes to five (four traffic lanes and a left turn lane.) At a later date, Cavanaugh is slated for widening from two lanes to three, plus bicycle lanes. These two projects, plus the SE Plan's recommendations made in 1981, make the realignment of the Dunckel and Cavanaugh appropriate. Funds are now available for the Dunckel Road improvements to take place, and the property acquisition for the intersection must be completed to secure these funds. The location and character of the proposal appears to be reasonable. The extent of the acquisition is a product of engineering and negotiation. The Act 285 Review involves a portion of Lots 1, 2, and 3 of Sonnybrook Plat, and the proposed intersection alignment reflects AASHTO design standards. The remaining parcels will be usable in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance. Staff recommends approval of Act-32-2001, to authorize negotiation and purchase of portions of Lots 1, 2, and 3 of Sonnybrook Plat, for fair market value, for the purpose of improving the Dunckel/Cavanaugh intersection, provided that any excess property be resold to the property owner. Ms. Foster inquired about street trees being included along Dunckel Road and that street trees should be added along commercial strips as well. Referencing the Committee of the Whole discussion on this matter and concurring with the Committee of the Whole action, Mr. Smith made a motion, seconded by Ms. Keene to recommend approval of ACT-32-2001, NW corner of Dunckel & Cavanaugh, Acquire for Street ROW Intersection with the following conditions: (1) traffic calming measures be implemented to include lane narrowing for traffic but favorably designed for bikes, (2) reduce and post the speed limit to 30 mph on Cavanaugh Road, (3) increase the number of street trees along Cavanaugh Road for perceptual traffic calming and use existing trees as much as possible from the property being purchased, (4) add extra marking on bike lanes and/or greater separation of bike lanes from travel lanes, (5) prohibit trucks, (6) neighborhood organizations should be brought into process to comment on design soonest including a side walk option for the neighbors, (7) average road width to be 11, or narrower if possible, (8) Dunckel Road be designed to have two through lanes PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES June 4, 2002, Page 10 and additional lanes dedicated as a deceleration lane for convenience store/gas station complex and Trappers Cove apartment complex and a left turn center lane for these uses, and (9) add street trees on Dunckel Road. Frederick. . . Ave Foster. . . Ave Patrick . .Aye Cordill. . . Aye Keene. . .Ave Smith . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye Ruge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye On a Roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 7; Nays: 0; carried; APPROVED WCONDITIONS. 4. Executive Committee - None. C. REPORT FROM PLANNING MANAGER 1 . Memo regarding NACP Camp. D. Pending Items: Future action required 1. Zoning and Ordinance Committee a. Z-1-1998, 1223 N.Turner St.,"H" Light Industrial District to"G-1" Business District(Tabled February 11, 1998) b. Z-5-1998,401-407 E. Grand River,"F"Commercial District to"G-1" Business District(Tabled June 10, 1998) C. Z-8-2000, 3901 S. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd., "F"Commercial to"H" Light Industrial District(Tabled June 14, 2000) d. Z-15-2000, 301 W. Lenawee Street, Professional Office to"G-1" Business District(Tabled January 17, 2001) e. P-1-2001,Tentative Preliminary Plat,Wexford Woods (Tabled June 13, May 9, 2001) f. PRD-2-2001, "Crystal Woods", Planned Residential Neighborhood (Tabled August 15, 2001) g. SLU-6-2001, 517-519 E. Grand River Ave., Church in"F-1"Commercial District (Tabled November 14,2001) h. SLU-8-2001,3000 W. Miller Road,Additional Parking for an Existing Church (Tabled November 14, 2001) i. SLU-3-2002, 2710 N. Grand River Ave., Church in the"F" Commercial District& "J" Parking District(Tabled May 15, 2002) j. Ordinance Amendments,Accessory Structures (Action expected) 2. Urban Development Committee a. Act-9-2000, 201 E. Grand River Avenue, Proj. Sign Over ROW (Tabled June 27, 2000) b. Act-2-2002, Lansing Housing Commission Property, 310 Seymour,Acquisition for public purposes (Tabled February 26, 2002) 3. Committee of the Whole d. Planning Board Ms. Stachowiak requested the Board remove the Ordinance Amendments from the table and act upon them since there are at least 6 members present tonight. PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES June 4, 2002, Page 11 Mr. Smith made a motion, seconded by Ms. Foster to remove Ordinance Amendments, Accessory Structures from the table. On a voice vote, the motion carried. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows: Ms. Foster made a motion, seconded by Mr. Ruge to approve the proposed Ordinance Amendments, Accessory Structures. Frederick. . . Ave Foster. . . Ave Patrick . .Ave Cordill. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Keene. . .Ave Smith . Ave Ruge . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye On a Roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 7; Nays: 0; carried; APPROVED. 9. NEW BUSINESS - None. 10. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON - None. 11. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS Mr. Ruge stated he would be interested in attending the Michigan Municipal League training on August 14, 2002. The training will be held in Lansing. Ms. Cordill inquired about huge trucks using Francis Ave. Mr. Ruff stated this would be reported to the Lansing Police Department as well as the Public Service Department. Ms. Patrick inquired about dirt roads, between Hodge on the south and Mt. Hope on the north, and between Cedar Street and Washington. The dirt streets all had standing water. Mr. Ruff stated these would be Public Service type projects. 12. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS Ms. Patrick stated there was a visit to Auto Zone on the corner of Cedar Court and South Cedar. Auto Zone displayed some red, white and blue flag banners that appear tacky. Ms. Patrick stated the now closed CVS Pharmacy drug store parking lot, located at Cavanaugh Road and Cedar Street, consistently has white panel trucks parked in the parking lot. PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES June 4, 2002, Page 12 Mr. Ruge stated that he has seen some movement at the church on Michigan Ave. Currently, a fence and a wall are being built. Ms. Stachowiak stated a landscape strip will be placed along Michigan Ave. and landscaping along the perimeter of the site. The site plan has just been approved. Mr. Ruge inquired about vegetation. Ms. Stachowiak stated vegetation will be on the church's side of the wall. Mr. Frederick stated that the parking requirements need to be discussed with Van Houten Produce on Cedar Street. The parking area was filled with trays, and tables full of plants, fruits, and vegetables. On Saturday and Sunday, the cars were forced to park an entire city block into the residential neighborhoods on both sides of the street. The neighbors were not too excited about the parking situation. 13. ADJOURNMENT - Meeting was adjourned at 9:28 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James A. Ruff, Secretary, Planning Board PB Minutes.060402.wpd Draft to Clerk 2002 Approved 2002 To Clerk 2002 Minutes of the Regular Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD 7:00 p.m., Tenth Floor, Council Chambers Lansing City Hall Tuesday, June 4, 2002 1. OPENING SESSION The meeting was called to order at 7:01 p.m. by Chairman Frederick. A. Roll call. Present: Frederick, Foster, Cordill, Keene, Patrick, Ruge, Smith. B. Staff Attending: Ruff, Stachowiak, Rieske. C. Excused absences: None. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA It was moved by Mr. Smith, supported by Ms. Keene to approve the agenda. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (7-0). 3. COMMUNICATIONS A. Card was given to the Board members regarding the Festival of the Sun in North Lansing Old Town June 22, 2002 from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. 4. HEARINGS A. Z-7-2002, S. Cedar St., "A" Residential District to "F" Commercial District This is a request by Volunteers of America to rezone a 2 acre segment of a Consumers Power right-of-way, located on the east side of S. Cedar St. between Armstrong Rd. and E. Northrup St. and more particularly described as: The West 600 feet of the North 165 feet of the South 825 feet of the Southeast 114 of the Northeast 114 of Section 4, T3N, R2W. from "A" Residential District to "F" Commercial District. The purpose of this request is to allow for the creation of a used car lot (car auction). PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES June 4, 2002, Page 2 Sue Stachowiak stated that a letter was received from the applicant to withdraw this case. Volunteers of America was not able to come to an agreement with Consumers Power to allow for a car lot on the lot as proposed. Mr. Ruff stated that Consumers has sold the transmission lines and have made some changes. Those changes have affected Volunteers of America. Mr. Ruge inquired about a non-motorized trail through this area that was listed in the Parks and Recreation Department comments. Mr. Rieske stated there was a discussion about a possibility of a non-motorized trail. The southwest area Master Plan calls for parks and open space in this area. It is not owned by the City and is not currently a park. The utility corridor runs into the southeast planning area and this designates it right of way as a utility. At the Regional level, there have been discussions regarding continuous non-motorized paths and river trails extending the length of the river in the Tri-county region. There has been a discussion about utility rights of way and there is nothing in an approved plan. B. Z-8-2002, 5950 S. ML King Jr. Blvd., Rezoning from "E-2" Local Shopping District to "F" Commercial District This is a request by John Daly to rezone the property located at 5950 S. ML King Jr. Blvd., more particularly described as: Lots 10 & 11, Webster Farm Subdivision No. 1, City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan. PPN 33-01-05-05-306-091 from "E-2" Local Shopping District to "F" Commercial District. If approved, the applicant intends to have outdoor sales of trailers and sheds at 5950 S. ML King Jr. Blvd. Sue Stachowiak gave a brief overview. A discussion ensued regarding the rezoning of the property in 1971. John Cusick, resident of 4606 Arden Road, stated that he is representing the applicant. Most of the trailer and sheds being discussed are new products and there will not be any assembling of these products. Most people who are looking for trailers are traveling to Elkhart, Indiana. This would be a benefit to the area to have people purchase products from them. There will be 10 trailers and 6 sheds and plenty of adequate space for these. There will also be plenty of customer parking. Closing of Webster street can be done and there will still be plenty of parking so the customers can make their way back to Martin Luther King Blvd. This property has been used for a retail shop and there is no need to change anything. Trailers and sheds will be added to the business. Most of the sheds the company will carry will be used for trailer parks and community PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES June 4, 2002, Page 3 housing so the residents will have some kind of correlation in the trailer parks. Most of the people he has spoken with in the trailer business are in favor of the idea because a 5' x 8' can be built and be uniform in the trailer parks around the area. He would appreciate the assistance because he believes it would an asset to make the business profitable. Ms. Patrick stated that she visited the property last night. Currently the building is backed right up to the lot line. Mr. Cusick stated on the property there is approximately 42' that extends beyond the building. The fence up close to the building is not the property line. Ms. Patrick inquired about the thick stand of trees and if they would remain. Mr. Cusick saw no need to move them. Ms. Patrick inquired if the current building would be removed. Mr. Cusick stated the building would remain and be used as an office. A discussion ensued regarding the sizes of the trailers and sheds. Seeing no one else wishing to speak on this matter, Mr. Frederick referred Z-8-2002 to the next Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting scheduled for Wednesday, June 12, 2002, at 4:00 p.m., 316 N. Capitol Ave., Department Conference Room. C. Z-9-2002, 724 N. Walnut, "C" Residential District to "DM-3" Residential District This is a request by Ferris Development to rezone the property at 724 N. Walnut, more specifically described as: S 2 R of E 47 FT & S 44 FT & S44 FT of W 118 FT Lot 9 Block 56, Original Plat, City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan. from "C" Residential to "DM-3" Residential District. The purpose of the rezoning is to bring the property into compliance with the Zoning Ordinance for a 4-unit structure at 724 N. Walnut. Sue Stachowiak gave a brief overview. A discussion ensued regarding a variance, side yard setbacks, and a lot coverage issue for the property. Roger Newcomb, Executive Director of Ferris Development and resident 720 N. Walnut, asked the Board to consider approving the rezoning application. Ferris Development wants to use of the Tax Credit Financing to rehabilitate the property. One of the requirements is that the zoning be conforming because of some language in the nonconforming zoning status. The variances will be addressed next week. With this structure there will be approximately $175,000 of rehabilitation work and PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES June 4, 2002, Page 4 will be using funding from the City of Lansing Home Funds, Low Income Tax Credits and bank financing to do this project. The property located at 819 N. Walnut is another $135,000 worth of rehabilitations. The garage will be demolished. He gave a brief overview of the property located at 724 N. Walnut. He asked the Board for their help with both the business and neighborhood. Ms. Cordill inquired about the "C" residential zoning of the property and if it would be feasible to rehabilitate the property with less units than proposed. Mr. Newcomb stated yes but the cost would increase exponentially. Ms. Foster commended Ferris Development for the work they have done in Lansing. Ferris Development has really helped a lot of properties that no other person would have taken. Ron Van Zee, Construction Manager for Ferris Development, stated that he had pictures of 724 N. Walnut and 819 N. Walnut. Both of these properties have been deemed to be listed or eligible for listing in the National Historic Register and are a part of the old fourth ward. When he first walked through both properties, he was quite hesitant to assume responsibility. Ferris Development would like to do a full rehabilitation of the property. He gave a brief overview and stated that Ferris Development would meet all of the required historic standards. It would be better than housing quality or code compliance standards as is done with all their properties. The properties would be rebuilt to match the historic character of when they were built. A discussion ensued regarding the porch of a house located at Pennsylvania and Vine. Seeing no one else wishing to speak on this matter, Mr. Frederick referred Z-9-2002 to the next Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting scheduled for Wednesday, June 12, 2002, at 4:00 p.m., 316 N. Capitol Ave., Department Conference Room. D. Z-10-2002, 819 N. Walnut, "C" Residential District to "DM-3" Residential District This is a request by Ferris Development to rezone the property at 819 N. Walnut, more specifically described as: S 3 R of E 7 R, Lot 3 Block 48, Original Plat, City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan. from "C" Residential to "DM-3" Residential District. The purpose of the rezoning is to bring the 4-unit structure at 819 N. Walnut into compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES June 4, 2002, Page 5 Sue Stachowiak gave a brief overview. A discussion ensued regarding parking. Ron Van Zee, Construction Manager for Ferris Development, stated that both of the properties' front yards are in line with the surrounding properties. He gave an overview of the garage and furnace situations at the 819 N. Walnut property. Ferris Development would meet all of the required historic, housing quality and code compliance standards with complete electrical, plumbing, and mechanical systems as well as the structural aspects of the house. A discussion ensued regarding the gravel driveway that extends to the alley. Ferris Development will be implementing hard surfacing. He stated that when Ferris Development acquires properties as tax credit properties, they are required to maintain ownership and manage the properties indefinitely. The properties cannot be sold and Ferris Development will take care of them. Seeing no one else wishing to speak on this matter, Mr. Frederick referred Z-10-2002 to the next Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting scheduled for Wednesday, June 12, 2002, at 4:00 p.m., 316 N. Capitol Ave., Department Conference Room. 5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each) Seeing no one wishing to address the Board, Mr. Frederick closed the public comment period. 6. SPECIAL PRESENTATION - LA 445 Design Work Mr. Rieske stated that Ms. Sissi P. Foster has structured her L.A. 445 class on Advanced Project Design to focus on Lansing projects and to benefit our Master Plan Project. She has worked with the Planning Office on the structure of the course, and the deliverables the City would receive. The City was represented in this process by Ms. Foster, who also provided pro bono assistance to the Planning Office in developing the overall work plan for the Master Plan Project. The Planning Office staff have been involved in determining the students' deliverables, and have served as resource persons to the students and instructor on an as-needed basis. Ms. Foster presented the LA 445 Design Work project. The class has 17 fifth- year L.A. students, each of whom has done an individual design project within the City of Lansing. Each student provided a vision for the tri-county region, the entire city, and a 9 block (±) area with all the land uses contained in that area. In this manner, projects cover various parts of the City, involving industrial, PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES June 4, 2002, Page 6 commercial, and residential components, and portray various visions with physical design solutions that blend both the natural and created environment with people and their needs. Students have taken their design projects from initial conception to the final designs, and provide design development documentation which takes their projects (specific sites in the City of Lansing) through a progressive series of steps that result in a continually increasing level of detailed design solutions. Ms. Foster explained that as a result of this course, the City will receive (1) a compact disk (CD) version of each bound student report, which will contain final text and graphics, regarding the problem statement, background research, site design, design development, and final design, (2) a Power Point presentation of each report, and (3) a final drawing of each project, suitable for public display. Mr. Rieske explained that this project pertains to two phases of the Master Plan Project: Phase III (Visioning) and Phase IV (Alternative Development Scenarios). The City will receive numerous visions of Lansing's future, along with display quality prototype designs, supported by the background research. Each of the projects contain a citywide and neighborhood scope, as well as a regional context. These products can be used during the Master Plan Project to stimulate discussion on a shared vision for Lansing, and the consideration of alternative solutions. Mr. Rieske stated that project drawings and reports are in the conference room, and the Board members and the public are welcome to review them. This can be done either during the recess, or if the recess is omitted, then at the end of the meeting. 7. RECESS was not taken by the Board. 8. BUSINESS SESSION A. Minutes for Approval: None. B. Committee Reports 1. ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE Next meeting, Wednesday, June 12, 2002 at 4:00 p.m. 316 N. Capitol Ave., Department Conference Room. 2. URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Next meeting, Tuesday, June 25, 2002, at 4:00 p.m. 316 N. Capitol Ave., Department Conference Room. PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES June 4, 2002, Page 7 Ms. Keene made a motion; seconded by Ms. Foster to dissolve into the Committee of the Whole. On a voice vote, the motion carried. Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Ms. Keene to remove Act-32-2001 from the table. On a voice vote, the motion carried. 3a. Committee of the Whole, Mr. Smith, Chair a. ACT-32-2001, NW corner of Dunckel & Cavanaugh, Acquire for Street ROW Intersection Bill Rieske gave a brief overview. Ms. Dykema, Public Service Department, was present to answer questions of the Board. A discussion ensued regarding the truck traffic and proposed speed limit through this area. Ms. Dykema stated that the current speed is 35 mph. Mr. Frederic stated there is no posted speed limit sign in this area. Ms. Dykema stated that truck routes are established by ordinance and the streets are listed in the ordinance. In order to add this to the truck map, the City would need to go before City Council to have it added to the ordinance. Trucks travel all the time on streets that are not on the truck route. Once off the truck route, trucks would need to take the most direct route to their destination. A discussion ensued regarding truck drivers familiarizing themselves with the truck route lists. A discussion ensued regarding traffic safety in this area. A discussion ensued regarding 11' lanes on Dunckel Road. Cavanaugh Road has 10'-11' lanes. A discussion ensued regarding a larger design of the Dunckel/Cavanaugh Road design. A discussion ensued regarding a meeting with the neighborhood to receive input on the design of the road. Ms. Dykema stated that she has talked with 4 or 5 residents in the area. Ms. Patrick stated Forest View Citizens Association and Old Everett Neighborhood Organization should be notified on this type of issue. A discussion ensued regarding traffic calming measures. PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES June 4, 2002, Page 8 Ms. Foster made a motion, seconded by Ms. Keene to recommend approval of ACT-32-2001, NW corner of Dunckel & Cavanaugh, Acquire for Street ROW Intersection with the following conditions: (1) traffic calming measures be implemented to include lane narrowing for traffic but favorably designed for bikes, (2) reduce and post the speed limit to 30 mph on Cavanaugh Road, (3) increase the number of street trees along Cavanaugh Road for perceptual traffic calming and use existing trees as much as possible from the property being purchased, (4) add extra marking on bike lanes and/or greater separation of bike lanes from travel lanes, (5) prohibit trucks, (6) neighborhood organizations should be brought into process to comment on design soonest including a side walk option for the neighbors, (7) average road width to be 1 V or narrower if possible, (8) Dunckel Road be designed to have two through lanes and additional lanes dedicated as a deceleration lane for convenience store/gas station complex and Trappers Cove apartment complex and a left turn center lane for these uses. On a voice vote, the motion carried. Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Ms. Foster to arise from the Committee of the Whole. On a voice vote, the motion carried. 3b. Committee of the Whole, Mr. Smith, Chair a. ACT-32-2001, NW corner of Dunckel & Cavanaugh, Acquire for Street ROW Intersection The City Engineer is requesting to acquire property to realign the intersection of Dunckel and Cavanaugh roads. Increased development in the Dunckel Road area has resulted in greater traffic congestion, including residential development north of Jolly Road in the City of Lansing, and commercial, industrial, office and school traffic south of Jolly in Delhi Township. The SE Area Comprehensive Plan designates the entire area between Dunckel, Jolly, and Collins Road (the eastern city limits) for multi-family residential (15-20 units/acre), professional office, and commercial. Delhi Township has a growing office/industrial park south of Jolly, served by Dunckel and Pine Tree Roads. This development places increased pressure on the Jolly Road/US 127 interchange, which is served by Dunckel Road. Dunckel is five lanes in width at US 127, and narrows to two lanes as it proceeds west and south toward Jolly. Turning movements to and from the Trappers Cove complex and Cavanaugh Road are difficult during peak traffic periods. PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES June 4, 2002, Page 9 Cavanaugh Road, which serves as a connector between Aurelius Road and Dunckel, also faces increased pressure, especially due to restrictions in the Clemens Street neighborhood at the north end of Aurelius Road. As a result, Duncke► is proposed for widening from two lanes to five (four traffic lanes and a left turn lane.) At a later date, Cavanaugh is slated for widening from two lanes to three, plus bicyc►e lanes. These two projects, plus the SE Plan's recommendations made in 1981, make the realignment of the Dunckel and Cavanaugh appropriate. Funds are now available for the Dunckel Road improvements to take place, and the property acquisition for the intersection must be completed to secure these funds. The location and character of the proposal appears to be reasonable. The extent of the acquisition is a product of engineering and negotiation. The Act 285 Review involves a portion of Lots 1, 2, and 3 of Sonnybrook Plat, and the proposed intersection alignment reflects AASHTO design standards. The remaining parcels will be usable in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance. Staff recommends approval of Act-32-2001, to authorize negotiation and purchase of portions of Lots 1, 2, and 3 of Sonnybrook Plat, for fair market value, for the purpose of improving the Dunckel/Cavanaugh intersection, provided that any excess property be resold to the property owner. Ms. Foster inquired about street trees being included along Dunckel Road and that street trees should be added along commercial strips as well. Referencing the Committee of the Whole discussion on this matter and concurring with the Committee of the Whole action, Mr. Smith made a motion, seconded by Ms. Keene to recommend approval of ACT-32-2001, NW corner of Dunckel & Cavanaugh, Acquire for Street ROW Intersection with the following conditions: (1) traffic calming measures be implemented to include lane narrowing for traffic but favorably designed for bikes, (2) reduce and post the speed limit to 30 mph on Cavanaugh Road, (3) increase the number of street trees along Cavanaugh Road for perceptual traffic calming and use existing trees as much as possible from the property being purchased, (4) add extra marking on bike lanes and/or greater separation of bike lanes from travel lanes, (5) prohibit trucks, (6) neighborhood organizations should be brought into process to comment on design soonest including a side walk option for the neighbors, (7) average road width to be 11, or narrower if possible, (8) Dunckel Road be designed to have two through lanes PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES June 4, 2002, Page 10 and additional lanes dedicated as a deceleration lane for convenience store/gas station complex and Trappers Cove apartment complex and a left turn center lane for these uses, and (9) add street trees on Dunckel Road. Frederick. . . Ave Foster • Ave Patrick . .Ave Cordill • Ave Keene. . .Ave Smith . Ave Ruge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave On a Roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 7; Nays: 0; carried; APPROVED w/CONDITIONS. 4. Executive Committee - None. C. REPORT FROM PLANNING MANAGER 1. Memo regarding NACP Camp. D. Pending Items: Future action required 1. Zoning and Ordinance Committee a. Z-1-1998, 1223 N.Turner St.,"H" Light Industrial District to"G-1" Business District(Tabled February 11, 1998) b. Z-5-1998,401-407 E. Grand River,"F"Commercial District to"G-1" Business District(Tabled June 10, 1998) C. Z-8-2000, 3901 S. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd.,"F"Commercial to"H"Light Industrial District(Tabled June 14, 2000) d. Z-15-2000, 301 W. Lenawee Street, Professional Office to"G-1" Business District(Tabled January 17,2001) e. P-1-2001,Tentative Preliminary Plat,Wexford Woods (Tabled June 13, May 9, 2001) f. PRD-2-2001,"Crystal Woods", Planned Residential Neighborhood (Tabled August 15, 2001) g. SLU-6-2001, 517-519 E. Grand River Ave., Church in"F-1"Commercial District (Tabled November 14,2001) h. SLU-8-2001, 3000 W. Miller Road,Additional Parking for an Existing Church (Tabled November 14,2001) i. SLU-3-2002,2710 N. Grand River Ave., Church in the"F"Commercial District& "J" Parking District(Tabled May 15,2002) j. Ordinance Amendments, Accessory Structures (Action expected) 2. Urban Development Committee a. Act-9-2000, 201 E. Grand River Avenue, Proj. Sign Over ROW (Tabled June 27, 2000) b. Act-2-2002, Lansing Housing Commission Property, 310 Seymour,Acquisition for public purposes (Tabled February 26, 2002) 3. Committee of the Whole d. Planninq Board Ms. Stachowiak requested the Board remove the Ordinance Amendments from the table and act upon them since there are at least 6 members present tonight. PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES June 4, 2002, Page 11 Mr. Smith made a motion, seconded by Ms. Foster to remove Ordinance Amendments, Accessory Structures from the table. On a voice vote, the motion carried. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows: Ms. Foster made a motion, seconded by Mr. Ruge to approve the proposed Ordinance Amendments, Accessory Structures. Frederick. . . Ave Foster. . . Ave Patrick . .Ave Cordill. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Keene. . .Ave Smith . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Ruge . . Ave On a Roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 7; Nays: 0; carried; APPROVED. 9. NEW BUSINESS - None. 10. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON - None. 11. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS Mr. Ruge stated he would be interested in attending the Michigan Municipal League training on August 14, 2002. The training will be held in Lansing. Ms. Cordill inquired about huge trucks using Francis Ave. Mr. Ruff stated this would be reported to the Lansing Police Department as well as the Public Service Department. Ms. Patrick inquired about dirt roads, between Hodge on the south and Mt. Hope on the north, and between Cedar Street and Washington. The dirt streets all had standing water. Mr. Ruff stated these would be Public Service type projects. 12. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS Ms. Patrick stated there was a visit to Auto Zone on the corner of Cedar Court and South Cedar, Auto Zone displayed some red, white and blue flag banners that appear tacky. Ms. Patrick stated the now closed CVS Pharmacy drug store parking lot, located at Cavanaugh Road and Cedar Street, consistently has white panel trucks parked in the parking lot. PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES June 4, 2002, Page 12 Mr. Ruge stated that he has seen some movement at the church on Michigan Ave. Currently, a fence and a wall are being built. Ms. Stachowiak stated a landscape strip will be placed along Michigan Ave. and landscaping along the perimeter of the site. The site plan has just been approved. Mr. Ruge inquired about vegetation. Ms. Stachowiak stated vegetation will be on the church's side of the wall. Mr. Frederick stated that the parking requirements need to be discussed with Van Houten Produce on Cedar Street. The parking area was filled with trays, and tables full of plants, fruits, and vegetables. On Saturday and Sunday, the cars were forced to park an entire city block into the residential neighborhoods on both sides of the street. The neighbors were not too excited about the parking situation. 13. ADJOURNMENT - Meeting was adjourned at 9:28 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James A. Ruff, Secretary, Planning Board PB Minutes.060402.wpd Approved as written 6-18-02 Draft to Clerk May 30,2002 Approved June 18,2002 To Clerk June 19,2002 Minutes of the Regular Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD 7:00 p.m., Tenth Floor, Council Chambers Lansing City Hall Tuesday, May 21, 2002 1. OPENING SESSION The meeting was called to order at 7:07 p.m. by Chairman Frederick. A. Roll call. Present: Frederick, Foster (arrived at 7:25 p.m.), Keene, Patrick, Smith. B. Staff Attending: Stachowiak, Rieske, Ruff, Stanich. C. Excused absences: Ruge, Cordill. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mr. Frederick stated that Mr. Murdock Jemerson, Director of Lansing Parks and Recreation, was present. It was moved by Ms. Keene, supported by Ms. Patrick to approve the revised agenda with ACT-27-2002 (Comfort Station) as a Committee of the Whole item for discussion. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (4-0). 3. COMMUNICATIONS A. Letter from Windsor Charter Township regarding an amendment to their land use plan. Referred to the Urban Development Committee for review. 4. HEARINGS A. ACT-8-2002, Seven (7) City-Owned Lots, Market for Sale This is a request by the Lansing Parks and Recreation Department to market for sale seven (7) non-dedicated parcels under the jurisdiction of the Parks and Recreation Department, more particularly described as: Lots 313, 314, 315, 317, 319, 320, and 322 Glenburne Subdivision No. 5, City of Lansing, Eaton County, Michigan. Lots 313, 314, and 315 are zoned "A" Single Family Residential District. Lots 317, 319, 320, and 322 are zoned "C" One and Two Family Residential District. This is not a matter of rezoning. PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES May 21, 2002, Page 2 Bill Rieske gave a brief overview. Mr. Murdock Jemerson, resident of 3344 Inverary Drive and Director of Parks and Recreation, City of Lansing, stated that these parcels are on the City's surplus property listing within the Parks and Recreation Department. Mr. Jemerson stated that it came to their attention in February when asked at the Park Board meeting to release these properties. He stated that the Parks Department took a look at the properties. The Park Board did not take action during its February meeting but in March when the Parks Department came back with more information on the parcels, the Park Board decided to recommend to the Mayor that these parcels be released and an ACT 285 review be conducted with a vote of (4-1). These parcels were purchased in 1995 by the former Parks and Recreation Director, Mr. Eric Reickel. This was done as possible lots to have access to a possible golf course in that area. These plans have now gone by the wayside and the Parks Department does not see a need for these parcels. The best use for them is for homes. These parcels are not dedicated in any way as far as park land is concerned and the Parks Department supports the recommendation to market these parcels. He stated that the Parks Department would like to keep one parcel for an access into Fine Park as Mr. Rieske indicated in his comments. Ms. Patrick asked Mr. Jemerson about having an experience like this where a private citizen is interested in purchasing park property. Mr. Jemerson stated that he hasn't and as Parks Director, he was not sure if it had happened in the past. Ms. Patrick inquired about what is required by procedure in order to offer surplus property for bids. Mr. Jemerson explained that these parcels were obtained from the State of Michigan and that there are surplus properties that are on the list that have been assigned to Parks and Recreation to manage but they are not properties that have been dedicated. The department does not have and does not foresee a use for these properties. Whenever you dispose of or acquire any property, an ACT 285 review goes into affect. Mr. Frederick inquired about how the lots would be marketed. Mr. Jemerson stated that the Planning Office would be better suited to comment on it and that the Parks Department turns to the Planning and Neighborhood Development Office for the sale of property. Mr. Ruff stated that in a situation like this these lots were purchased from the State of Michigan as tax reverted properties and purchased nominally for an approximate $300.00 fee. There may be some title issues with one or more of the properties. The Development Office would help the Parks Department with marketing and closing of the properties. Any dollars that are collected at the sale above and beyond what has been required for maintenance or administration will have to be turned back in for redistribution of taxes. It is not like it would be necessarily that you would get the highest market rate for the properties because the City would be PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES May 21, 2002, Page 3 quit claiming the deed unless somehow the City had a warranty deed. Mr. Frederick inquired about marketing and if marketing would be extensive enough so anyone interested in the property would have an opportunity to purchase it. Mr. Ruff stated that he believed so and that there is more than one lot available. There have been requests for 2-3 lots at this point and there are 7 lots available. The lots are all buildable from a size stand point. Once this is done, the City has a real estate agent that helps with marketing property and this individual would be assigned these properties as well. Mr. Jemerson stated that he did have pictures of the area if any of the Board members were interested in reviewing them. Beverly Miller, North Lansing Community Association, stated that there is still a problem with trying to figure out what is dedicated park land and what is park land. The reason why this is very important is because the charter does not specify that it has to be dedicated park land. It says park land. Unless the charter is changed, which can be done every 12 years, it is still park land. The park land cannot be sold without the vote of the people. It is the same as a cemetery or anything else that is in the charter. It has become a problem because someone decided to give all the real estate to the parks. She felt that this was not a very good idea and that it has confused everyone. When something is sold, whether it is park land or just real estate, unless a list is provided in which the City should be demanding a list saying what is park land separated from what is just plain real estate. The City's property should not be shuffled around like this. When someone comes to the Board and says that this is dedicated, how do they know? How does the City know if it is dedicated? The Charter does not even say the property has to be dedicated. Sarah Johnson Marciniak, resident of 1200 Ferley Street, stated that she has been watching this land for quite a while and her intentions are for lots 031 and 041 where she would like to place her house. This is a suburb area toward the back off the main road and is a place where she has felt divinely led to move her family. This is more of a personal matter to her. She has spoken with Mr. Jemerson on numerous occasions and he has assured her that this property is surplus and is not being used. She has toured and viewed the area many times and walked across Glenburne Hills into Fine Park. She has pictures, maps and history of the area. She stated that her son will be returning home from the Navy and that he fought in the Afghanistan war. She would like to have a nice secluded place in a quiet suburb for when he returns home so that he can rest and this area would be very beneficial. She is asking the Board to release these properties. Mr. Frederick asked Mr. Ruff who Ms. Marciniak would contact assuming that this property is released for sale. Mr. Ruff stated that it would be the Development Office. PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES May 21, 2002, Page 4 Nathan Hartley, resident of 4254 Glenburne Blvd., stated that he lives across the street from the parcels. To him these are not just parcels, this is his neighborhood. He is a Habitat home owner and would like to thank who ever donated that land to Habitat for Humanity. He does not mind if the land is sold. He is more concerned with Fine Park. Currently the property is used by four wheelers and motorcyclists. He and his children enjoy the little wood lot across the street from their home. He is hoping that the lot for access is down by the river. He would like to see Waverly Road become bike accessible. Jerry Heathcote, resident of 4011 Hartford Road, stated if these lots are to be marketed for sale, that there is a public notice and that there are sealed bids for each lot so that anyone interested can have an opportunity to place a bid on the property. Belinda Fitzpatrick, resident of 224 S. Holmes Street, stated if the property is going to be sold, that it should be put up for an open bid and open process. This is park land and the Charter does not say anything about it being dedicated or not dedicated. If the property is going to be sold, it needs to be placed before a vote of the people. Precedence needs to be considered when park land becomes labeled as disposable parcels in order to get around the Charter requirements. If someone was to follow the Charter and put it before the vote of the people or put it up for open bids so that anyone interested could get the taxpayers the most money, her concerns would be satisfied. Brian Smith, resident of 1007 Woodbine and Chairman of Citizens for a Better Lansing, stated this is the citizens group that currently has the City of Lansing in the State Court of Appeals over the word "required" and being in the City Charter. If the Board opened up the first page of the City Charter it says, "The citizens shall have a vote on the sale of any parks, cemetery, water front property, etc." The word "required" is not in there. What defines what is or what is not park property? This argument that the City uses gets to be so redundant and so stale. This whole "required" issue is still in the court of law. Seeing no one else wishing to speak on this matter, Mr. Frederick referred ACT-8-2002 to the Urban Development Committee, to meet this evening during the recess, City Council Conference Room, 10th Floor, City Hall. 5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each) Beverly Marsh, North Lansing Community Association and resident of 331 Harriet, stated that she is here to speak on 313 E. Grand River. She is here to ask the Board to retain this property as City owned property so all organizations will be able to use it. She is aware of some new problems with repairs but believes that it can be fixed with her estimate. She has looked over the furnace, PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES May 21, 2002, Page 5 removal of the old furnace, asbestos around the pipes, roof repairs, and general maintenance and cleaning. She stated that she is a contractor and works with asbestos and lead paint. Her estimate for repairs is roughly $51,000. She believes the City can come up with this amount for the building to be repaired and have all the organizations use the building as it was originally intended. Since the death of Thelma Osteen, the building has not been actively used like it should be. If asked about records of meetings that were held at the Comfort Station, you will not find them. There were very few. She believes the building should become a vital part of the North end again and that it is one of the best buildings located there. Everybody knows you need to see old town if you are going to the North end. The people know North Lansing and they do know the Comfort Station. The Comfort Station will always be a part of the North end and has been there since she has been around. She stated it could be made into a beautiful building without a lot of cost to the City. She knows that there is a cost and that the budget is tight. If everyone works together, there can be a way for the City to retain the property. If you have property starting out at $6,000 and the value goes up to $77,000 in twenty years, you have picked up money. She believes the property is an asset to the City and that the taxpayers should not bear the burden of the property being given to one entity to maintain. This was not the intended use for the building. It was intended for all community activities and not for just one organization. She asked the Board to please consider keeping the property in the hands of the City. Mr. Jemerson inquired about discussing the Comfort Station at this time or if it would be dealt with in a committee. Mr. Frederick stated that it would be addressed at the Committee of the Whole. Sherry Shaw, resident of 403 Beaver Street, believes the Comfort Station can be saved and used for the community. The building is usually closed and with other groups being made aware, the Comfort Station can be and should be used for their activities. There are a lot of small groups, who could grow into large groups, that would like to use the Comfort Station. She asked the Board to take into consideration the costs of bringing the building up to code and for the City to think about how the taxpayer monies are spent. The City has been known to give property away and clean up property, etc., etc. for some very wealthy developers. She believes a community, who invites other communities to use the Comfort Station for the sole purpose of bettering the community and other community activities, would benefit the whole City. She is against giving or selling the building to anyone at this time. She feels it has not been researched enough with feedback to say all that is found is what the inspectors have found along with looking at the outside of the building. The Comfort Station is a very vital building in that block of Grand River and always has been. She asked the Board to please consider all these things. She encouraged the Board to talk further with Mr. Jemerson, people who have been in the building and people who know more about the building as far as the status of cleaning up the building to make it vital for the neighborhood. Becky Weck, resident of 213 Douglas Ave., does not feel the Comfort Station should be sold to just one organization. She believes the building should be PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES May 21, 2002, Page 6 accessible to everyone for its use. The history and age of the building to where it can be brought back to use and everyone benefit, she feels this is what needs to happen. The City refers to the building as the Comfort Station and she refers to the building as the Thelma Osteen Comfort Station. She always will regardless if it is dedicated, legal or not legal, viable or not viable. The Mayor was present when the building was dedicated so she is not sure why the building is not addressed as the Thelma Osteen Comfort Station. The heritage of the building itself and how long it has remained standing, it was where the people would get on and wait for the trains, the history of the building. She does not feel the building should be sold to one person. It should be made accessible to everyone. Brian Smith, resident of 1007 Woodbine and Chairman of Citizens for a Better Lansing, stated that he has been following the Thelma Osteen Comfort Station situation since last November. There was a report filed, addressed to Mr. Bob Swanson from Mr. Jemerson, compiled by Mr. Marty Riel, City maintenance supervisor, that listed some factual errors. He provided Mr. Jemerson along with Councilmember Leeman a report that showed this building was built in 1914. The reported indicated the building was built around the 1920s. This is a historical building and there has to be some way that some of the ADA things are factored in because of the age of the building. In regards to the report that listed all the problems with the building, he does not understand how the City could lease a building that is substandard and deteriorated. This deterioration did not occur within the last 5 years. This is unfortunate because the public would like to address the Board after Mr. Jemerson has given his speech and answered the Board's questions. With the public not knowing what Mr. Jemerson will say or where the City is coming from, he feels this is unfortunate in the communication process. Belinda Fitzpatrick, resident of 224 S. Holmes Street, stated that property is a relationship between people regarding things. Property is the right to exclude others and that is why there is community property. Community property is available for everyone to use without excluding anyone. Her understanding is that Federal money, sweat equity and hard work have been put into the Comfort Station in order for it to be community property. She believes there is a community need for the Comfort Station to remain as community property so that it would be available for everyone and not in the hands of the few who can exclude others. Since the building is historic, she feels there is value that it is available to the use of all and not just a select few. She read the list, referenced by Mr. Smith, and stated that the City has reasons and justifications. There has been a rampage to dispose of public and park property, and give away public property to a few developers. She believes it is important to keep the Comfort Station as community use and that it is a justification. The City is trying to use this as an excuse to get rid of the property. She has done some research regarding historical buildings, codes, and how these codes could have a negative impact on historic buildings. There are ways to get around certain codes when dealing with historic buildings. There needs to be an assessment done by someone who has experience with historic buildings and knows how to meet safety requirements, and then work around other requirements that are not direct PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES May 21, 2002, Page 7 safety issues. The asbestos and lead paint abatements need to be done and she believes the City can afford to do these. With replacing the windows, these are a part of the historical character of the building. She believes the windows are not a safety concern. One of the things she found interesting in the report was "Remove the Christmas lights that are stapled to the ceiling and repair and paint ceiling." She felt this was getting a little picky. She believes it has been the agenda of the current administration to find ways to justify disposing of the community property. The Comfort Station is community property and it should remain community property so that everyone could have access to building and appreciate it. She attended the Christmas party and found it to be a delightful opportunity to spend some time in the presence of one of the older buildings. The building certainly has a presence to it that should be available for the enjoyment of all people. She encouraged the Board to keep the building as community property so that everyone would have an experience of enjoying the property with other people in the community. Beverly Miller, North Lansing Community Association, stated that she cannot figure out why the association is out of the building. She asked the Board if they had any idea why the association is out of the building and why the property was given to the Parks Board. She also asked why the lease had not been renewed. The former lease had been for 22 years without any problems. Since the City does not have the money, the association would like to have the building back to put their own money into the repairs. The association has always had their own liability. The City can eliminate liability and maintenance. The association will fix the bathrooms, take out the asbestos, and put in electric EXIT signs and alarms. Whatever it takes, the association will do it and it won't cost the taxpayer one penny. The association is that dedicated to the building. There are a lot of people who have put much of their time and their lives into the building. The Comfort Station was brought from a $6,000 City demolition to a $75,000 building and it can be better. She would like to see one person, organization or agency who had been turned away from the building. The association will take care of the repairs and it won't cost the City one penny. Seeing no one else wishing to address the Board, Mr. Frederick closed the public comment period. 6. RECESS was taken by the Board. During the recess, the Urban Development Committee met to discuss ACT-8-2002. 7. BUSINESS SESSION A. Minutes for Approval Ms. Keene moved; seconded by Ms. Foster to approve the minutes of April 16, 2002 without corrections. On a voice vote, motion carried (5-0), the minutes of April 16, 2002 were APPROVED. PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES May 21, 2002, Page 8 Ms. Foster moved; seconded by Ms. Keene to approve the minutes of April 23, 2002 without corrections. On a voice vote, motion carried (5-0), the minutes of April 23, 2002 were APPROVED. Ms. Foster moved; seconded by Ms. Keene to approve the minutes of May 7, 2002 with corrections. On a voice vote, motion carried (5-0), the minutes of May 7, 2002 were APPROVED w/CORRECTIONS. B. Committee Reports 1. ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE Ms. Foster, Vice Chair a. SLU-1-2002,1400 Block, W. Jolly Road, Special Land Use Permit - New Church in the "A" Residential Zoning District This is a request by Timothy Howell of Swanson Design Studios on behalf of Prince of Peace Baptist Church for a Special Land Use permit to construct a new church and related site improvements on a vacant, 3-acre parcel located in the 1400 Block of W. Jolly Road on the north side of the street. The property is zoned "A" Residential District which permits churches, if a Special Land Use permit is approved by the Lansing City Council. This is not a matter of a rezoning. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows: Ms. Foster made a motion, seconded by Mr. Smith to recommend approval of SLU-1-2002,1400 Block, W. Jolly Road, Special Land Use Permit - New Church in the "A" Residential Zoning District as recommended with the conditions that (1) the landscape screening and buffering along the north, east and west sides of the site consist of a combination of fencing, berms and plant materials as required by ordinance, to create a screen around the parking area that would be at least 8- feet in height, (2) the applicant work with the Department of Public Service and the Ingham County Drain Commissioner's Office to establish an agreement for construction of the detention basin within the Gilkey Drain easement, and (3) the City of Lansing reserves the right to perform construction within the entire easement, with any restoration of the site being the responsibility of the church. Frederick . . Ave Foster. . . Ave Keene . .Ave Patrick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Smith. . .Ave On a Roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 5; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED w/CONDITIONS. PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES May 21, 2002, Page 9 b. SLU-4-2002, 4515 S. Cedar Street, Special Land Use Permit - Child Care Center This is a request by Cedarway Free Methodist Church for a Special Land Use permit to establish a child care center serving 25-30 children in the existing church fellowship hall at 4515 S. Cedar Street. The property is zoned "B" Residential District which permits child care centers subject to approval of a special land use permit by the City Council. This is not a matter of a rezoning. Ms. Foster stated that she did view the site today and found the playground area limited on shade. Maybe one more tree could be added to allow for more shade. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows: Ms. Foster made a motion, seconded by Ms. Keene to recommend approval of SLU-4-2002, 4515 S. Cedar Street, Special Land Use Permit - Child Care Center as recommended with the conditions that (1) a revised plan be submitted to the Planning Office that depicts 2,500 square feet of fenced, outdoor play area, and (2) one additional tree be added to the site, near the outdoor play area. Frederick . Ave Foster. . Aye Keene . Ave Patrick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Smith. . Ave On a Roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 5; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED WCONDITIONS. C. Ordinance Amendments, Accessory Structures The proposed amendments would place additional regulations on the architecture, size and placement of accessory structures, including garages and would allow for increased sizes of accessory structures based upon lot size. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows: Ms. Foster made a motion, seconded by Ms. Keene to recommend approval of Ordinance Amendments, Accessory Structures. Frederick . Aye Foster. . . Ave Keene . Ave Patrick . . Ave Smith. . Ave PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES May 21, 2002, Page 10 On a Roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 5; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. Mr. Ruff stated that the motion carries but with an ordinance amendment, it would require six votes. Mr. Smith made a motion, seconded by Ms. Keene to defer the recommendation of Ordinance Amendments, Accessory Structures. On a voice vote, motion carried (5-0). DEFERRED. The motion has been deferred to the first opportunity when six members of the Board are present. Next meeting, Wednesday, June 12, 2002 at 4:00 p.m. 316 N. Capitol Ave., Department Conference Room. 2. URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, Ms. Patrick, Chair a. Act-23-2001, Abandon Banghart St. R-O-W, west of Northeast Street Nip-N-Sip Drive In, Nording Corporation, requests that the City of Lansing vacate the Banghart Right-of-Way west of North East Street, measuring 60' wide by 150' deep (see attached map). The applicant has stated that the property "is currently used as ingress and egress to our drive-in restaurant and that with improvements there would be less damage to our patrons' automobiles" and that it would be "more attractive to our customers and to the City of Lansing and to Gier Park." The proposed vacation of Banghart Street is located at in the 2600 block of North East Street, west of Northeast Street, measuring 60' wide by 150' deep. The unimproved right-of-way is currently used as ingress and egress to the adjacent drive-in restaurant. The applicant has stated that improvements to the right-of-way would be an improvement to the property and would result in less damage to their patrons' vehicles and would be more attractive to the business, to the City of Lansing and to Gier Park. The commercial character of the area will not change or have any adverse impact on surrounding land uses as a result of this request. Staff recommends approval of Act-23-01, the request by Nip-N-Sip Drive In, Nording Corporation, for the City of Lansing to either: PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES May 21, 2002, Page 11 1. vacate the right-of-way, reserving access and utility easements, or 2. provide a long term license (paying fair market value according to an appraisal by the Assessor's office or an outside appraiser) for the private use of the Banghart Right-of-Way west of Northeast Street, measuring 60' wide by 150' deep, provided that the applicant: 1. Complies with site development standards (site plan review, landscape screening & buffering, etc.), 2. Obtains MDOT permission to use Banghart as a private drive off of N. East Street, which is a state trunkline, and 3. Makes appropriate provision for the acquisition or long-term use of the south half of the Banghart ROW. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows: Ms. Patrick made a motion, seconded by Mr. Smith to recommend approval of Act-23-2001, Abandon Banghart St. R-O-W, west of Northeast Street. Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Foster. . . Ave Keene .Ave Patrick Ave Smith. . .Ave On a Roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 5; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED w/RECOMMENDATIONS. b. ACT-32-2001, NW corner of Dunckel & Cavanaugh, Acquire for Street ROW Intersection The City Engineer is requesting to acquire property to realign the intersection of Dunckel and Cavanaugh roads. Increased development in the Dunckel Road area has resulted in greater traffic congestion, including residential development north of Jolly Road in the City of Lansing, and commercial, industrial, office and school traffic south of Jolly in Delhi Township. The SE Area Comprehensive Plan designates the entire area between Dunckel, Jolly, and Collins Road (the eastern city limits) for multi-family residential (15-20 units/acre), professional office, and commercial. Delhi Township has a growing office/industrial park south of Jolly, served by Dunckel and Pine Tree Roads. PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES May 21, 2002, Page 12 This development places increased pressure on the Jolly Road/US 127 interchange, which is served by Dunckel Road. Dunckel is five lanes in width at US 127, and narrows to two lanes as it proceeds west and south toward Jolly. Turning movements to and from the Trappers Cove complex and Cavanaugh Road are difficult during peak traffic periods. Cavanaugh Road, which serves as a connector between Aurelius Road and Dunckel, also faces increased pressure, especially due to restrictions in the Clemens Street neighborhood at the north end of Aurelius Road. As a result, Dunckel is proposed for widening from two lanes to five (four traffic lanes and a left turn lane.) At a later date, Cavanaugh is slated for widening from two lanes to three, plus bicycle lanes. These two projects, plus the SE Plan's recommendations made in 1981, make the realignment of the Dunckel and Cavanaugh appropriate. Funds are now available for the Dunckel Road improvements to take place, and the property acquisition for the intersection must be completed to secure these funds. The location and character of the proposal appears to be reasonable. The extent of the acquisition is a product of engineering and negotiation. The Act 285 Review involves a portion of Lots 1, 2, and 3 of Sonnybrook Plat, and the proposed intersection alignment reflects AASHTO design standards. The remaining parcels will be usable in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance. Staff recommends approval of Act-32-2001, to authorize negotiation and purchase of portions of Lots 1, 2, and 3 of Sonnybrook Plat, for fair market value, for the purpose of improving the Dunckel/Cavanaugh intersection, provided that any excess property be resold to the property owner. Ms. Foster stated that Cavanaugh Road is quite residential and is slated for widening from two lanes to three plus the bike lanes. There are no sidewalks and she inquired about sidewalks being added so people could walk along the residential streets. She was not sure if three lanes would be too much. She was concerned about widening all these streets without an overall sense of where this may be going. The more the roads are widened, the less there is for public transportation to even succeed before the roads are so efficient. She was also concerned about how the house, PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES May 21, 2002, Page 13 located on the corner of Cavanaugh and Dunckel, would be impacted by the road. She inquired about a vegetation plan and how it would protect the house. Mr. Ruff stated that the structure located near the property is an office and that the owner owns the adjacent property as well. A general discussion ensued regarding vegetation, bicycle lanes, shared use lanes, sidewalks and the necessity of 14' lanes. Ms. Jane Dykema, Public Service Department Engineer, was available to discuss in depth the engineering of Cavanaugh and Dunkel Roads. A general discussion ensued regarding truck traffic through this area. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows: Ms. Patrick made a motion, seconded by Ms. Keene to recommend approval of ACT-32-2001, NW corner of Dunckel & Cavanaugh, Acquire for Street ROW Intersection with the conditions that (1) the residences surrounding the area be notified if they would like to have sidewalks added, and (2) that the City Forester become involved. Ms. Keene made a motion, seconded by Mr. Smith to table ACT-32-2001, NW corner of Dunckel & Cavanaugh, Acquire for Street ROW Intersection until more specific descriptions, drawings and plans could be provided to the give detailed information regarding the entire length of Cavanaugh Road between Aurelius and Dunckel Roads. On a voice vote, motion carried (5-0). TABLED. C. ACT-8-2002, Seven (7) City-Owned Lots, Market for Sale This is a request by the Lansing Parks and Recreation Department to market for sale seven (7) non-dedicated parcels under the jurisdiction of the Parks and Recreation Department, more particularly described as: Lots 313, 314, 315, 317, 319, 320, and 322 Glenburne Subdivision No. 5, City of Lansing, Eaton County, Michigan. Lots 313, 314, and 315 are zoned "A" Single Family Residential District. Lots 317, 319, 320, and 322 are zoned "C" One and Two Family Residential District. This is not a matter of rezoning. PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES May 21, 2002, Page 14 Ms. Foster stated that lot 315 had the sign showing Fine Park. Mr. Jemerson stated there is a sign that will be moved to the reserved lot for the entrance of Fine Park. He was not sure how the sign came to be on lot 315 but it is the Park's plan to move the sign onto the developed lot for the entrance of Fine Park. Ms. Foster inquired about which lot would become the entrance to Fine Park. Mr. Jemerson stated lot -011 would be the entrance to the park. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows: Ms. Patrick made a motion, seconded by Ms. Keene to recommend approval of ACT-8-2002, Seven (7) City-Owned Lots, Market for Sale with the following conditions that (1) if there are any title problems that exist, they will become the responsibility of the buyer after the conveyance, and (2) if it is determined that a bid process is required, marketing will be subject to the bid process. Frederick Ave Foster. Aye Keene .Ave Patrick Ave Smith. . .Aye On a Roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 5; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED w/CONDITIONS. Ms. Patrick stated there will not be an Urban Development Committee meeting on May 28, 2002 because all the pending business was handled this evening. Next meeting, Tuesday, June 25, 2002, at 4:00 p.m. 316 N. Capitol Ave., Department Conference Room. Ms. Keene made a motion; seconded by Ms. Foster to dissolve into the Committee of the Whole. On a voice vote, the motion carried. 3a. Committee of the Whole, Mr. Smith, Chair a. Act-27-2001, 313 E. Grand River Ave. (Comfort Station) Marketing for Sale This is to consider Act-27-2001, the marketing for sale of the property at 313 E. Grand River for use by non-profit organization(s). Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Ms. Keene to remove Act-27-2001 from the table. On a voice vote, the motion carried. PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES May 21, 2002, Page 15 Bill Rieske gave a brief overview. Mr. Jemerson presented the Board with a memo regarding the closure of the Comfort Station, a memo regarding cost estimates and critical maintenance issues, and photos indicating areas of disrepair. He stated that the Comfort Station did not come to the Parks and Recreation Department until January 31, 2002, when the lease had expired. The Parks and Recreation Department has not been involved until now and the Comfort Station is not a budgeted item within the department. The department did not have a key to the Comfort Station until the department had been informed of it being surplus property and that this surplus property had a lease that ran out January 31, 2002. He was informed by Mr. Emil Winnicker, Planning and Neighborhood Development Office. At that time the question was asked of Mr. Jemerson to continue this and he stated the department could not because there is no budget whatsoever for this facility. The facility is not within the department's five year plan. The department has other facilities nearby, the Turner Dodge facility and Gier Community Center, that are included in the budget and are open to the general public. He agreed with the staff recommendations, presented by Mr. Winnicker, to sell the property with caveats as mentioned in the staff report that deal with maintaining the historic facade of this facility as well as making sure the public has access to the facility. The department has recognized that it has been used for the North Lansing Community Association. After walking through the facility, it is in a state of disrepair. He stated that this type of facility within the Parks and Recreation Department would have been closed a long time ago and that the department does not have any of its facilities with restrooms looking like this. He toured the facility with the Park Maintenance Supervisor as well as the Supervisor of Building Maintenance. In February 2002, the Park Board reviewed and listened to the citizens of north Lansing and the North Lansing Community Association. The Board tabled their recommendation on the ACT 285 review until the next month and then made a recommendation to the Mayor for the facility to go for sale and supported the staff recommendation. In the mean time, the Parks and Recreation Department would go ahead and have keys made for the facility, which have been done. The department also offered to the community the ability to meet in the facility under a special use permit. The department had one group, the Thelma Osteen Youth Group, that came to the department and made application for the special use permit and this was prior to his visit to the facility. The PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES May 21, 2002, Page 16 department granted the group use of the facility and the group met three times in the facility. Then he had his visit. When he was informed of the possibility of lead based paint as well as asbestos and then the Fire Marshall came through the facility and recommended closure based on some fire, health and safety hazards that were discovered, he recommended to the Mayor to close the facility. The department moved the youth group to the Turner Dodge House and they will be meeting there while this whole issue is being addressed. He stated that he passed out to the Board the information that one of the speakers referred to earlier. This was in response to a question during his budget hearing for the department for the FY 2003 fiscal year. He had a question regarding the Comfort Station in terms of putting together an estimated cost to maintain the Comfort Station. He stated that if the department was to maintain the facility, which the department currently has now, it would have to pay an estimate close to $40,000 a year. Before the department could even do that, the department would have to address all the issues that Mr. Marty Riel put together in the visit to the facility. Mr. Riel estimated the cost to bring the facility up to current codes between $120,000 to $175,000. Primarily the issues deal with handicap accessability. As far as getting to the second level and the restrooms, they are not ADA accessible. So the department would have to put in some very significant dollars to bring this facility up to code. Where these dollars would come from, he is not exactly sure because this is a facility that is not within the Parks and Recreation Department budget. That is another reason why the department agrees with the staff recommendation. The department does not feel as though it has the need in this area to take on another community center when the department has Turner Dodge within a half mile. The department has done very extensive renovations to Turner Dodge. The friends of Turner Dodge received a grant to do some interior restoration and this was a matching grant of $200,000 from the State of Michigan and the City has put in at least $127,000 to replace the fire suppression system at Turner Dodge. Also, Gier Community Center is another full service recreation facility community center that is not even a mile away from the Comfort Station. The department feels that it has a number of major priorities facing it that need to be addressed well before the consideration of the department taking on another facility like this. The department feels that this facility is not one that is needed at this point in time. He stated that the memo he addressed to the Mayor regarding his decision to close the facility and also attached to it is the Fire Marshall's report. Again, this is PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES May 21, 2002, Page 17 a facility that the department does support the staff recommendation with caveats that it be held open for public access as well as the restoration and preservation of the historic facade. Mr. Smith inquired about the staff recommendations. He stated that the second recommendation said, "The City should manage the property for community use until the time of sale." If we follow the assumption after what Mr. Jemerson has said here concerning the safety of the building and the potential liabilities, is he correct in assuming that this would mean the building would remain closed until it is sold? Mr. Jemerson stated that it was correct. Mr. Frederick inquired about a community group or groups that would have the wherewithall to purchase and rehabilitate the building to make it fit for habitation. He stated that it does not seem to be fit for that right now and that there seems to be some fairly hazardous conditions. He would be hesitant to even offer this facility for sale without making sure whoever it was sold to had the wherewithall to bring it up to code. Mr. Ruff stated that some of the issues that are on this list, especially with Mr. Jemerson's list make the facility ADA accessible and such, would not necessarily be a requirement of a group that would continue its use. Abating flaking lead base paint or sealing off of asbestos laden pipe coverings can be done as health issues without going in and installing an elevator. If a group had the facility, it would have to make all those improvements. If someone gets a major building permit to renovate the entire building, one might do all those things. We're not looking at a major change at the building's use. The Building Safety Office went through the facility and there are things that need to be done but are not insurmountable to getting it done. With the conditions that the Planning Office was requesting, like the preservation of the facade and some community use to it, obviously that would affect the sale price as well as any necessary improvements. It may be nominal or close to a nominal sale price to an organization to also fill those requirements. Mr. Frederick stated disregarding the ADA requirements, an elevator would be quite pricey and would not expect that to have to be done. He sees some fairly serious situations with lack of wired smoke alarms, electrical system problems, leaking water into the basement, and plumbing looks like it is PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES May 21, 2002, Page 18 not in good shape. It looks like anybody in the facility right now could get beaned by the kitchen cabinet if the post came out from underneath it. He did not realize the facility was in such bad shape. The Board heard testimony tonight that it would take $51,000 to bring the facility up to some semblance of safety and even that would be a stretch for a lot of community groups to raise. Ms. Keene inquired about the marketing of the facility and if it is feasible to believe that a community group is going to be willing to take this on. Mr. Jemerson stated that there are community groups that are interested in the facility. He would leave the marketing up to the real estate people within the Planning and Neighborhood Development. He is present tonight to say that this is not a budgeted item within the City of Lansing, Parks and Recreation Department and as it stands right now, the department is paying utilities on a facility that should really remain closed until issues are addressed. The department cannot open a facility in this state. He would leave all the marketing up to the Planning and Neighborhood Development office to put forth some type of strategy to turn this facility over to someone else. Ms. Foster inquired about the budget and how much the City did pay to maintain the building before the lease expired. Mr. Jemerson stated that he has no history, recollection, written record or anything on this facility. He did not even have the keys to this facility. Ms. Foster stated that nothing came out of the Parks and Recreation Department budget for this facility. Mr. Jemerson stated nothing. Ms. Foster stated that nothing is budgeted currently for this facility. Mr. Jemerson stated that is correct. Ms. Foster inquired about the lease and had it not expired, this facility would not even be subject to sale. Mr. Jemerson stated that if the lease was still in affect, yes. Ms. Foster wanted to know what the objection would be of renewing the lease knowing that the organization would take care of liability, maintenance and all the other issues. Mr. Jemerson stated that this would be a part of the Parks and Recreation Department and that the department did not have any financial impact prior to this. The Board can see the financial impact that the facility would have if the department were to maintain the facility. Ms. Foster inquired about why the facility has to be a part of Parks. She stated that if it were leased before under Parks, and if it get leased again it would still be under Parks. Mr. Jemerson stated that he was not clear on how this facility got to Parks and Recreation in the first place. The process did not include asking the department about how this facility fits in with the five year plan of the Parks and Recreation PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES May 21, 2002, Page 19 Department way back when. He does not have the history of when it came to the department but it would be a lease that the department would have to operate and control. The department just does not have that type of leadership to deal with this facility. Ms. Foster inquired about the previous lease being operated by Parks. Mr. Jemerson stated no, the department did not. Ms. Foster asked about who operated the previous lease. Mr. Jemerson stated that Mr. Winnicker in Planning and Development maintained the lease, not Parks and Recreation. Ms. Foster inquired about if there had been a physical change and that this property now cannot have a lease from the same place. Mr. Ruff stated that much of the sale of the property is done if long term leased managed. The real estate, not the property management, is managed through the Development office whether it is for sale or long term lease. This lease had expired and there were concerns about its continued use. So the question was raised about continuing to lease it long term or selling it. There was a process and a recommendation was made by the Parks Board to sell it, so the Planning and Neighborhood Development office is responding to it. Ms. Foster inquired about the lease and if leased again, would go through the same office. Mr. Ruff stated that it would go through the same office for a long term lease. Ms. Foster stated that it would still be out of the Parks Department budget and that there seems to be a community group that really loves this building. If it gets leased with the conditions that these issues will be addressed within the first two years, if the community group does not meet that then the property could be sold. Mr. Ruff stated that there could be reverter clauses in the lease or in the sale. Ms. Foster stated that the City has not put one penny into it. Mr. Ruff stated that there has been a variety of possible recommendations in the report. Mr. Rieske stated the possible recommendations to consider are on pages 8 and 9 of the staff report and that on page 10 there is a summary with a recommendation for approval of the marketing for sale with conditions. He stated that there were a number of options reviewed and basically came up with this one. Ms. Foster stated that the maintaining of the building in City property, it is a historic building and she would hate for the City to lose it. This gives the most flexibility and will allow the group to stay at the facility and repair it so there is no money coming off the City budget for that. Yet it also gives flexibility in the future if the City wants to do something else with it. Mr. Jemerson stated the group that was occupying the facility and who had the lease, did approach the Park Board PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES May 21, 2002, Page 20 requesting that the lease be continued. If there was a sale, the group would have the first right of refusal. But, it was very apparent to the Park Board that the organization had some problems contained within the organization itself and could not decide on how the organization would operate. It made the Park Board feel very uncomfortable. That is why the Park Board tabled it to see if the organization could get itself together because there was a lot of bickering amongst themselves. In the end, the Park Board did not feel comfortable with renewing the lease with the organization that held the lease. That was part of the Park Board's thinking also as to why they did not continue or vote to continue the lease. Mr. Frederick stated that all these discussion about leases is making him very nervous after having seen the pictures. One thing that he is concerned with Ms. Foster suggested leasing the facility to the community organization and having them accept the liability. He did not believe this could be done. After seeing the pictures, he does not think Ms. Eleanor Love's department would allow this facility to be leased to anybody if it were a private building. He thought Ms. Love would be over there slapping a red tag on it. He cannot, in good conscience, recommend the City lease something in this condition without making it safe. This will clearly cost a lot of money and he thought this was Mr. Jemerson's point. The City does not have the money to make this a viable building and this even enhances his concerns that it would be sold to a community group that would meet in the facility and may or may not be able to get the wherewithall to make it safe let alone fix it up into an acceptable condition. He would like to know the City's liability would be if it was leased in this condition and that cabinet came off the wall and injured someone. He felt the City would be liable for it. Mr. Jemerson stated the City would be liable and that is why it is closed at this point. Mr. Frederick stated that was the best move the Parks Department made on this whole thing was getting a look at the condition of this facility. Looking at it from the outside, no one can tell that it is in this kind of shape. He would be very nervous recommending this facility to be leased at all. Ms. Keene agreed with Mr. Frederick and she does not think the Board is not in the shoes of the people of the Parks and Recreation Department. The Board cannot micromanage and tell them what they should take care of and they are in a better position to know about those kind of things as a starting point. If the community has allowed the facility to deteriorate like this, and she could not say what the facility PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES May 21, 2002, Page 21 was like when the organization received it, she cannot have any confidence in their ability to bring the facility up to standards if it was in this kind of condition during the five year term of the lease or however long the lease had been, twenty years or whatever. The liability will remain with the City even if the City continues to require the community group to have insurance on the facility. The City is a deep pocket and if someone is injured because of the lead paint or some of these cabinets falling, the community group would be sued but the City of Lansing will also be sued because whoever is injured is going to look to the City because the City has a deep pocket. She cannot see leasing the facility in this kind of condition. Mr. Jemerson stated that it is not just the money. For him, it is a need and is there a need for the City to operate a community center when there are two facilities already. He cannot see that. He can understand there is a need and desire in the community to meet in this facility because of fact that this was a facility that came on line because of the efforts of one of Lansing's favorite north Lansing residence and that same person, Ms. Thelma Osteen, had a major say and major role to play in the Turner Dodge House in the restoration of that facility too. He is looking at this from a facility standpoint, is the Parks Department supplying adequate spots for people to meet and he thinks the department is with the two facilities that the department already has and that this could continue to be a facility to allow the public to meet. It is going to take some money. Ms. Foster stated that the condition of the building definitely needs attention. She was wondering as to the schedule and if it were possible to allow the community to repair this facility or give them one year to get the facility up to snuff so that maybe later on it can be leased. Mr. Jemerson stated that he would not recommend that based on the experience as far as community involvement in some of the other projects. He would not want to enter in to another agreement where the community sometimes bites off a little bit more than they can chew. What the Board is looking at in terms of the pictures, i.e. asbestos, that is something a community group cannot handle. It requires a license to deal with that as well as abatement of the lead paint. He would not recommend that at all. Ms. Foster was recommending that maybe the group could get a contractor to do the work. She understands that maybe financial may be a problem. She would be happier recommending this if the Parks Board had been unanimously in favor of it. It was a (3-2) decision and that makes her uncomfortable because PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES May 21, 2002, Page 22 there was enough support to try to re-lease this property. Mr. Jemerson stated that the Parks Board is an advisory board. He thinks the pictures tell the story in terms of a facility that was mismanaged and was not maintained. The Parks and Recreation Department does have standards and there is no way they would open or lease a facility like that. There are some facilities that are currently closed that look better than this facility. Ms. Foster stated that her concern is that it is true this facility was definitely mismanaged and that the community groups did not keep it up to the way it should have been. Knowing the community group could lose this building, she was wondering if they would be able to truly come together to save this building and if they need to be given the time to be able to do that. Find some kind of a method to give the organization the time to come together and save this building and if they cannot, then go ahead and sell it. They were given the chance. She feels that they mismanaged and did not do it properly. Mr. Jemerson stated the department did give the community some time to try to work out the internal problems and did not get a good result in return. The staff recommendation is that community access be maintained by a new owner and that would be a caveat or it would revert back to City ownership if that was not held. There is not a risk of losing community access if it was acted upon. Mr. Smith stated that the situation the Parks Department is in if options were given to a community group to possibly build this facility up to code, then the department would be back in the situation of signing a lease agreement and acknowledging the existing problems which would expose the department to greater liability. Mr. Jemerson stated it would not be a lease, it would be a sale. Mr. Smith referred back to the management of the property for community use until time of sale. For the community group who were in the facility right now there is no existing lease with them. They are out and gone. Mr. Jemerson stated that is correct. Discussion continued. Mr. Jemerson stated that there were some folks in the audience who wanted to make a comment. Mr. Smith asked the Board if they wanted to indulge this. Mr. Frederick stated he was not in support of this and that there was a public hearing and two sessions of public commentary where the people clearly made their desires known to him. Ms. Keene agreed. Mr. Smith also agreed and stated that there has been ample opportunity for public input and Mr. Jemerson was invited to tonight's meeting specifically to PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES May 21, 2002, Page 23 address a specific concern. Ms. Keene stated that this goes to City Council after it leaves the Board and that there will be another opportunity to address concerns at that time as well. Ms. Patrick stated that where it says the City should manage the property for community use, maybe take out the phrase "for community use" and say "The City shall manage the property until it is sold." Ms. Keene made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick to recommend approval of Act-27-2001, 313 E. Grand River Ave. (Comfort Station) Marketing for Sale with the recommended conditions that (1) reserve an historic facade easement in perpetuity, (2) accommodate the current license for equipment owned by Sharp Technologies and currently located on the site, (3) the property be marketed preferably to community group or groups for broad-based community use, (4) the name of the building remain as the "Thelma Joyce Osteen Comfort Station" as designated by City Council Resolution #077 of 1999, and (5) the City manage the property until it is sold. On a voice vote, the motion carried. Ms. Keene made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick to arise from the Committee of the Whole. On a voice vote, the motion carried. 3b. Committee of the Whole, Mr. Smith, Chair a. Act-27-2001, 313 E. Grand River Ave. (Comfort Station) Marketing for Sale This is to consider Act-27-2001, the marketing for sale of the property at 313 E. Grand River for use by non-profit organization(s). Mr. Rieske clarified that it was inferred from the previous motions that the license for Sharp Technologies would be continued. Mr. Frederick stated this was a matter of public interest. Ms Foster stated that she would like for the community to have the option first. PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES May 21, 2002, Page 24 Referencing the Committee of the Whole discussion on this matter and concurring with the Committee of the Whole action, Mr. Smith made a motion, seconded by Ms. Keene to recommend approval of Act-27-2001, 313 E. Grand River Ave. (Comfort Station) Marketing for Sale with the recommended conditions that (1) reserve an historic facade easement in perpetuity, (2) accommodate the current license for equipment owned by Sharp Technologies and currently located on the site, (3) the property be marketed preferably to community group or groups for broad- based community use, (4) the name of the building remain as the "Thelma Joyce Osteen Comfort Station" as designated by City Council Resolution #077 of 1999, and (5) the City manage the property until it is sold. Frederick. . . Ave Foster. . . Nay Patrick . .Ave Smith . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye Keene. . .Ave On a Roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 4; Nays: 1; carried; CARRIED. Act-27-2001, 313 E. Grand River Ave. (Comfort Station) Marketing for Sale has been recommended for approval with conditions and recommendations. 4. Executive Committee - None. C. REPORT FROM PLANNING MANAGER 1. Wolverine Pipeline Update. 2. Windsor Charter Township letter - PB action to refer to Urban Development Committee. 3. Master Plan Updates. 4. Development Planning Committee Meeting on May 23, 2002. 5. BTS meeting on May 22, 2002. 6. Ms. Cordill will be returning in June. Ms. Keene made a motion, seconded by Mr. Smith to refer the request from Windsor Township Planning Commission report to the Urban Development Committee. On a voice vote, motion carried (5-0). REFERRED. D. Pending Items: Future action required 1. Zoning and Ordinance Committee a. Z-1-1998, 1223 N.Turner St.,"H" Light Industrial District to"G-1" Business District(Tabled February 11, 1998) b. Z-5-1998,401-407 E. Grand River,"F"Commercial District to"G-1" Business District(Tabled June 10, 1998) C. Z-8-2000, 3901 S. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd., "F" Commercial to"H" Light Industrial District(Tabled June 14, 2000) d. Z-15-2000, 301 W. Lenawee Street, Professional Office to"G-1" Business District(Tabled January 17, 2001) PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES May 21, 2002, Page 25 e. P-1-2001,Tentative Preliminary Plat,Wexford Woods (Tabled June 13, May 9, 2001) f. PRD-2-2001,"Crystal Woods", Planned Residential Neighborhood (Tabled August 15,2001) g. SLU-6-2001, 517-519 E. Grand River Ave., Church in 7-1"Commercial District (Tabled November 14,2001) h. SLU-8-2001, 3000 W. Miller Road,Additional Parking for an Existing Church (Tabled November 14,2001) i. SLU-3-2002,2710 N. Grand River Ave., Church in the 7"Commercial District& "J"Parking District(Tabled May 15, 2002) j. Ordinance Amendments, Accessory Structures (Action expected) 2. Urban Development Committee a. Act-9-2000, 201 E. Grand River Avenue, Proj. Sign Over ROW (Tabled June 27,2000) b. Act-2-2002, Lansing Housing Commission Property, 310 Seymour,Acquisition for public purposes (Tabled February 26, 2002) 3. Committee of the Whole 4. Planning Board 8. NEW BUSINESS - None. 9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON - None. 10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS Mr. Smith stated that he had asked not to be extended after his term expires the end of June. He will be leaving the Board and had enjoyed working with all the Planning Board members. He has put in five years and stated that was a long time. He accepted a new job with the State Bar of Michigan. He will be working as a graphic designer starting after the Memorial Day holiday. Ms. Foster stated that she received an e-mail from Mr. John Gear. He has pulled his Planning Board member application and she inquired about the situation. Mr. Ruff gave an overview of the situation. Ms. Foster stated that she will be on vacation from June 61h - July 18th and requested excused absences. Mr. Smith made a motion, seconded by Ms. Keene to approve three excused absence requests for Ms. Foster for the June 18th, July 2nd, and July 161h meetings. On a voice vote, motion carried (5-0). Ms. Patrick requested an excused absence for the June 18th and July 16`h meetings. Mr. Smith made a motion, seconded by Ms. Foster to approve an excused absence request for Ms. Patrick for the June 18th and July 16th meetings. On a voice vote, motion carried (5-0). Ms. Patrick stated that on the corner of Pennsylvania and Jolly Road, the used car lot has moved in. They are making progress on landscaping and she PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES May 21, 2002, Page 26 inquired about why the firm was allowed to move in before the site plan had been implemented. Mr. Ruff gave an a brief overview. Mr. Smith made a motion, seconded by Ms. Keene to approve an excused absence request for Mr. Ruge for tonight's meeting. On a voice vote, motion carried (5-0). 11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS - None. 12. ADJOURNMENT - Meeting was adjourned at 10:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James A. Ruff, Secretary, Planning Board PB Minutes.052102.wpd APPROVED WITH CORRECTIONS: Draft to Clerk May 8,2002 PAGE 1,UNDER OPENING SESSION, 1A, ROLL CALL SIB Approved May 21,2002 FREDERICK, PATRICK,SMITH. To Clerk May 23,2002 Minutes of the Regular Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD 7:00 p.m., Tenth Floor, Council Chambers Lansing City Hall Tuesday, May 7, 2002 1. OPENING SESSION The meeting was called to order at 7:10 p.m. by Chairman Frederick. A. Roll call. Present: Frederick, Keene, Patrick, Smith. The Planning Board lacked the necessary four members to convene the regularly scheduled meeting. B. Staff Attending: Stachowiak, Rieske. C. Excused absences: Ruge, Foster, Keene and Cordill. Chairman Frederick stated that the Planning Board does not have a quorum and therefore, the members who are present will only be holding the two scheduled public hearings and taking public comments. He further stated that no action would be taken at this meeting. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA- None. 3. COMMUNICATIONS - None. Ms. Patrick made a motion, seconded by Mr. Smith to dissolve into the Committee of the Whole for the purpose of holding the two scheduled public hearings and taking public comments. On a voice vote, the motion carried (3-0). 4. HEARINGS A. SLU-3-2002, 2710 N. Grand River, Church in the"F" Commercial & "J" Parking Districts This is a request by Viol Trice for a Special Land Use permit to locate a church at 2710 N. Grand River Avenue. The church will have seating for up to 50 people. Zoning of the property is "F" Commercial and "J" Parking Districts which will allow a church if a Special Land Use permit is granted by City Council. PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES May 7, 2002, Page 2 Susan Stachowiak presented the case, and stated that a full staff report, including a recommendation, will be provided for the Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting. Mr. Smith asked why the church is currently occupying the building at 2710 N. Grand River. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the Building Safety Office found that the church was in operation without any permits from the City. She explained that there were building code issues as well as zoning issues associated with the church occupying this building. The building code issues have been addressed, and if the Special Land Use permit is approved, they will have the necessary zoning approvals as well. Ms. Patrick inquired about the tax exemption if the beauty salon continues to occupy a portion of the building. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the tax exemption would be based on the percentage of the building that is occupied by the church. Viol Trice, 2710 N. Grand River Avenue, spoke in support of his request. B. SLU-4-2002, 4515 S. Cedar Street, Special Land Use Permit - Child Care Center This is a request by Cedarway Free Methodist Church for a Special Land Use permit to establish a child care center serving 25-30 children in the existing church fellowship hall at 4515 S. Cedar Street. The property is zoned "B" Residential District which permits child care centers subject to approval of a special land use permit by the City Council. Susan Stachowiak presented the case, and stated that a full staff report, including a recommendation, will be provided for the Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting. Ms. Patrick stated that the business plan included in the packet for the child care center was very helpful and contained a lot of detailed information. She also stated that it would be nice if all of the churches and day care centers would provide this level of detail with their requests. Viol Trice, 2710 N. Grand River Avenue, requested a copy of the business plan for the child care center. 5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each) - None. PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES May 7, 2002, Page 3 Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Ms. Patrick to arise from the Committee of the Whole. On a voice vote, the motion carried (3-0). 6. RECESS - None. 7. BUSINESS SESSION - None. 8. NEW BUSINESS - None. 9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON - None. 10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS - None. 11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS - None. 12. ADJOURNMENT - Meeting was adjourned at 7:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James A. Ruff, Secretary, Planning Board PB Minutes.050702.wpd Draft to Clerk May 8,2002 Approved 2002 To Clerk 2002 Minutes of the Regular Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD 7:00 p.m., Tenth Floor, Council Chambers Lansing City Hall Tuesday, May 7, 2002 1. OPENING SESSION The meeting was called to order at 7:10 p.m. by Chairman Frederick. A. Roll call. Present: Frederick, Keene, Patrick. The Planning Board lacked the necessary four members to convene the regularly scheduled meeting. B. Staff Attending: Stachowiak, Rieske. C. Excused absences: Ruge, Foster, Keene and Cordill. Mr. Frederick stated that the Planning Board does not have a quorum and therefore, the members who are present will only be holding the two scheduled public hearings and taking public comments. He further stated that no action would be taken at this meeting. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA - None. 3. COMMUNICATIONS - None. Ms. Patrick made a motion, seconded by Mr. Smith to dissolve into the Committee of the Whole for the purpose of holding the two scheduled public hearings and taking public comments. On a voice vote, the motion carried (3-0). 4. HEARINGS A. SLU-3-2002, 2710 N. Grand River, Church in the"F" Commercial & "J" Parking Districts This is a request by Viol Trice for a Special Land Use permit to locate a church at 2710 N. Grand River Avenue. The church will have seating for up to 50 people. Zoning of the property is "F" Commercial and "J" Parking Districts which will allow a church if a Special Land Use permit is granted by City Council. PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES May 7, 2002, Page 2 Susan Stachowiak presented the case and stated that a full staff report, including a recommendation, will be provided for the Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting. Mr. Smith asked why the church is currently occupying the building at 2710 N. Grand River. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the Building Safety Office found that the church was in operation without any permits from the City. She explained that there were building code issues as well as zoning issues associated with the church occupying this building and that the building code issues have been addressed, and if the Special Land Use permit is approved, they will have the necessary zoning approvals as well. Ms. Patrick inquired about the tax exemption if the beauty salon continues to occupy a portion of the building. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the tax exemption would be based on the percentage of the building that is occupied by the church. Viol Trice, 2710 N. Grand River Avenue, spoke in support of his request. B. SLU-4-2002, 4515 S. Cedar Street, Special Land Use Permit - Child Care Center This is a request by Cedarway Free Methodist Church for a Special Land Use permit to establish a child care center serving 25-30 children in the existing church fellowship hall at 4515 S. Cedar Street. The property is zoned "B" Residential District which permits child care centers subject to approval of a special land use permit by the City Council. Susan Stachowiak presented the case and stated that a full staff report, including a recommendation, will be provided for the Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting. Ms. Patrick stated that the business plan included in the packet for the child care center was very helpful and contained a lot of detailed information. She also stated that it would be nice if all of the churches and day care centers would provide this level of detail with their requests. Viol Trice, 2710 N. Grand River Avenue, requested a copy of the business plan for the child care center. 5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each) - None. PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES May 7, 2002, Page 3 Mr. Frederick made a motion, seconded by Ms. Patrick to arise from the Committee of the Whole. On a voice vote, the motion carried (3-0). 6. RECESS - None. 7. BUSINESS SESSION - None. 8. NEW BUSINESS - None. 9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON - None. 10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS - None. 11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS - None. 12. ADJOURNMENT - Meeting was adjourned at 7:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James A. Ruff, Secretary, Planning Board PB Minutes.050702.wpd Approved as written 5-21-02 Draft to Clerk May 3,2002 Approved May 21,2002 To Clerk May 23,2002 Minutes of the Special Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD 7:00 p.m., Tenth Floor, Council Chambers Lansing City Hall Tuesday, April 23, 2002 1. OPENING SESSION The meeting was called to order at 7:02 p.m. by Chairman Frederick. A. Roll call. Present: Frederick, Foster, Keene, Patrick, Smith, Ruge. B. Staff Attending: Ruff, Rieske. C. Excused absence: Ms. Cordill. It was moved by Mr. Smith, supported by Ms. Patrick to approve an excused absence for Ms. Cordill. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (6-0). 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA It was moved by Mr. Smith, supported by Ms. Keene to approve the revised agenda. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (6-0). 3. COMMUNICATIONS A. The City Clerk's Office reported to the City Council on April 22, 2002 a petition in opposition to the pipeline with 374 signatures. Mr. Ruff stated that the attorneys for Wolverine Pipe Line presented some addendums to the Environmental Report which they had submitted previously in one of the six standing notebooks and that the Board members had already received that addendum within their Environmental Report. He also stated that for the record Ms. Christine Soneral from Dykema Gossett made sure the packet was delivered to the Planning Office and that the Board members were aware that the packet was here and had already been part of the their documents. 4. HEARINGS - None. 5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE Seeing no one wishing to address the Board, Mr. Frederick closed the public comment period. PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 23, 2002, Page 2 6. RECESS was not taken by the Board. 7. BUSINESS SESSION A. There were no minutes to approve at this time. B. Committee Reports 1. ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE, Mr. Ruge, Chair Next meeting, Wednesday, May 15, 2002 at 4:00 p.m. 316 N. Capitol Ave., Department Conference Room. 2. URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, Ms. Patrick, Chair Ms. Patrick stated that the UDC meeting for tonight had been postponed. Next meeting, Tuesday, May 28, 2002, at 4:00 p.m. 316 N. Capitol Ave., Department Conference Room. Ms. Keene made a motion; seconded by Mr. Ruge to dissolve into the Committee of the Whole. On a voice vote, the motion carried. 3a. Committee of the Whole, Mr. Smith, Chair a. Act-7-2002, Gasoline Pipeline in 1-96 Right-of-Way, Wolverine Pipe Line Company Mr. Rieske stated that the transcript of the public hearing minutes in draft form had been distributed to the Board members. Mr. Ruff stated that he passed along to the Board in their packets a basic memorandum to remind the Board to bring their staff report and then pointed out some information to make sure the Board was aware with regard to US GAO report as well as the staff report information in the depositions. This was the MPSC staff deposition along with PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 23, 2002, Page 3 the MPSC staff reports that were part of the deposition record as well. Mr. Ruff also stated the main thing from a staff stand point was, the folks representing Wolverine have heard from him before, the concerns the City had with putting at risk, even though it was testified that the risk is debatable, the environmental concerns such as the well head protection areas and the construction that takes place in the right of way. One of the evenings that he was on his way home down 1-96 and he was going around 1-96 and saw a gentleman out in the 1-96 right of way cutting down a tree. There was an older gentleman down near the right of way edge and Edgewood Blvd. This was on the north side of the expressway along that southern route. He was cutting down a tree and he had his old pickup truck out there. People do get out in the right of way every now and then. Maybe he had a permit. Mr. Ruff stated that he thought it was quite unusual. Even though this is a limited access highway, the City believes there is activity that does take place. You can see some of the construction activity that takes place even with rebuilding some of the roadway on the west side in the township. There are 40,000 plus vehicles that travel by there every day and there is a risk involved in that. Mr. Ruff stated that he did not go beyond the most recent report of at least referring to the Blackman Township incident but if the Board noted any other, there are web sites out there that have a lot of information and pipeline incidents and testimony in front of the U.S. House of Representatives on different things regarding pipeline incidents such as one out in Bellingham, WA where a pipeline broke and ruptured and fumes filled the valley adjoining it and burning up a one and a half mile length of corridor of that valley and killing three young people. As more pipelines are built, according to the GAO report, the pipeline leaks have not necessarily dissipated in numbers, even though technology get better. There are more pipelines out there as you go over the course of time and there is a corresponding risk that goes with it. The City is concerned about risk and being the central city of the area. As the City goes, the area goes from both an economic and environmental stand point because the City helps supply water to the entire region. The Board has more recently looked at wellhead protection through the Board of Water and Light and the Wellhead Protection Program. It was recommended as an item for continued pursuit back when it came to the Board. It is also not recognized in the Master Plan as a utility corridor. 1-96 is recognized as a highway but not promoted in the Master Plan documents for utilities. While the State of Michigan PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 23, 2002, Page 4 has opened up the opportunity to have utilities in the corridor, Mr. Ruff felt a need of prudence in how it is handled. Having one type of use in a corridor may be different than another type of use just as similarly as you have different uses within varying zoning districts where some are more innocuous than others or less potentially problematic to adjoining properties, environmentally, etc. You do look at the range of uses that come through and when you make zoning decisions you also look at the range of uses even though there might a particular proposal. The City does not control or have ownership of Wolverine Pipeline. The company could change hands, management or practice. The City would not be controlling that at that point. This is a long term facility and the City has to look at the long term picture here. If it is a pipeline that should be able to be constructed and it is in a good manner that would last one hundred years or more, it is very difficult for the City to understand the promise of management of a facility of that length of time as well. Yes, there are some very positive points of having a new pipe over an old pipe but the pipe's placement is very important. Mr. Ruff stated that he felt this is a regional question and a regional type of project and would have approached the Tri-County Regional Planning Commission. This could be an avenue of pursuit because right now they are going through a regional growth study and could even incorporate this into that regional growth study as far as green ways and utility corridors for those types of things that would befit proper Master Planning principles. The Planning Office feels this is inconsistent with the surrounding area and Master Plans. It is also inconsistent to place the risk in the largest community in the tri-county area and that there could be a significant case for environmental injustice as well based upon the previous application. The comparison of the two areas as is seen in the summary by the Law Office, there is a good case for that. He stated that the Planning Office recommended that the application to run the pipeline through the City on the I- 96 corridor be denied. Mr. Ruge inquired about what recourse Wolverine had if the application is denied and whether Wolverine could apply to City Council or sue the City. Mr. Ruff stated that the recommendation will go to City Council. It was applied to the Law Office and the City Council recommended that the Planning Board do an Act 285 review to gather information PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 23, 2002, Page 5 and make a recommendation. Mr. Ruff anticipates having a letter to the Mayor tomorrow of the determination of whatever decision was rendered this evening. Then it would be on the City Council agenda Monday night for receipt and taken up as a business item. Mr. Ruff stated that he was not sure of the date City Council would take it up and that the City Council has a budget hearing the first of May. The City Council will be selecting a new Council person to fill Mr. Adado's vacated seat and some other significant items on their agenda. Mr. Ruff anticipates before the end of May, City Council would have made a recommendation. He stated that the submitted material would go to the Michigan Public Service Commission and that with the MPSC the material could become part of their records. As support for or lack of support with the applicant's application with the MPSC, potentially this could get to the point, depending upon the situation, where it could easily end up in court but that would be up to the Mayor's Office, Law Office and City Council. Mr. Frederick stated that he spent a lot of time reviewing all the options and considering everything given to the Board. At the public hearing, he asked Mr. Cole if his company had considered rather than building the 22 mile long pipeline to meet with the terminal that the company considered moving. Mr. Cole indicated that the terminal was not owned by Wolverine Pipe Line. It was owned by one of the shippers and that Mr. Cole doubted Marathon National Petroleum would consider moving the terminal. Mr. Frederick was not particularly surprised or distressed with Mr. Cole's response because he is in the pipeline business and not in the terminal building business. In all of the testimony, reports, etc. that Mr. Frederick had read, the only thing that he saw the MPSC to consider was the Meridian Township route was not suitable and that the Township recommended other routes and eventually settled on the 1-96 route. Mr. Frederick stated that not all the alternatives to this pipeline that might be safer in the long run were considered. He had read a lot of safety reasons that the MPSC had cited as a hazzard for the Meridian Township route but that they seemed to apply to the 1-96 route as well. He could not see a whole lot of difference and that there are a lot of people and a lot of development along both routes. If the Meridian Township route is not justifiable then he believed the 1-96 route is not justifiable either. One of the things MPSC cited PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 23, 2002, Page 6 in particular was the spill risk to the Saginaw esker if a spill occurred in the Meridian Township route. He couldn't understand why this didn't apply to the Mason esker that the pipeline would cross if it went down the 1-96 route. He did not see where the geology could be that much different that there would a risk to the Saginaw esker and not to the Mason esker. Although there are a number of reasons why the risk to the Mason esker would be minimal and he felt the same reason could be used with Meridan Township as well. The applicant, Mr. Cole, also stated that underground storage tanks from service stations in Lansing are leaking and that these tanks have not threatened the water supply in Lansing. Mr. Frederick considered these leaks a risk and since he has been on the commission he has attempted to at least mitigate, if not, get them cleaned up. The most recent case being a used car dealership that was approved at Jolly Road and Pennsylvania Avenue. The City was not able to get the car dealership to do any clean up but the dealership did do a more extensive cap over the top to keep ground water from percolating down. He also believed a spill would endanger many residents along the 1-96 corridor because of the number of above ground drains that cross the freeway. One of the developments that the Board had considered two meetings ago, had a drain that limited the amount of development that could take place on the property. That particular drain would be crossed by the pipeline and it would cross from the development across the 1-96 corridor and drain on the other side. He was not sure which direction the drain would flow but either it would flow north into the Sycamore Creek and drain into the businesses and residences there or drain the other way into the development that the Board considered. The MPSC cited that the development of the existing Meridian Township line right of way, business and residential, specifically Meridian Mall, is a reason to select a different route. While this may sound logical, it appears to him that the Wolverine Pipe Line Company purchased an existing right of way from a company that didn't preserve its right of way and limit development with them in the distance that they seem to think the 1-96 route provides. To him, that is a self-imposed hardship and perhaps Wolverine Pipe Line should have taken that into consideration, although Wolverine did propose initially to develop the Meridian Township route. It was the MPSC that recommended the other alternate routes. From His experience sitting with the Planning Board PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 23, 2002, Page 7 and Board of Zoning and Appeals, self-imposed hardships are not a justification to move a development from one place to another. Self-imposed hardships are just that and the company or the applicant has to live with them. Mr. Ruge inquired about the City hiring an expert to assess alternative routes where the pipeline could be built. Mr. Ruff stated that the City hired an appraiser, Mr. Charles Green, who also had experience in recommending right of ways for electrical service corridors. Mr. Green proposed two alternative routes that would connect to their system and then there were four routes proposed by the MPSC staff in their first report on the Meridian Township case. Mr. Ruff referred to the testimony and exhibits of Mr. Green. In the testimony are the two routes he described including the maps. Mr. Ruff stated that this is a regional type of issue and that these areas are outside the city of Lansing. Primarily what the Board is doing today is addressing the pipeline coming through the city of Lansing. Ms. Patrick inquired about the specific authority that gives the MPSC jurisdiction over need and siting or routing of a petroleum pipeline. Mr. Ruff stated that he could not answer the question. Ms. Patrick also inquired about the county taking a position on the additional routes that were proposed. Mr. Ruff stated that the MPCS has only addressed those routes that have been applied for and that MPSC may not have addressed them fully. Mr. Ruff stated that the Ingham County Commissioner, Ms. Lisa Dedden, was an intervener in this case as well. Ms. Keene inquired if Ms. Dedden was an intervener or her own behalf or on behalf of the County. Mr. Ruff indicated that it may have been on Ms. Dedden's own behalf as a County official and that Ms. Dedden represents District 10, which includes most of this area of Lansing. Mr. Ruff stated it was his understanding that the ALJ granted intervener status to Ms. Dedden specifically. Mr. Ruge stated that Mr. Green recommended two alternate routes that both seem to follow power line right of ways and inquired about any discussion or testimony that indicated it would be unsafe to have a pipeline in the same proximity as power lines. Mr. Ruff did not recall there being any testimony of direct correlation of danger between the power lines and the hazardous liquid pipeline. Mr. Ruff stated that PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 23, 2002, Page 8 there was some testimony by Mr. Proudfoot in the material he had given to the Board members because there are utilities within that corridor or in a corridor, whether it is this one or the Michigan Electric corridor, that there would potentially be more sets of the utility eyes watching the corridor in general. This had its advantages that it was not just isolated to one utility or another. If there were people reviewing the right of way or the easement for either the electric or the pipeline and had seen some electrical problem, maybe it would make it easier for them to determine more specifically the endangerment to their facility. This was part of Mr. Proudfoot's cross examination in some of the materials given to the Board. Mr. Ruge is very concerned that the Board not be seen as suffering from the NIMBY syndrome. He stated that it is very important for the Board to explore if there are other viable routes that are actually better than the route being proposed. It appears that there is definitely a need for the pipeline and that it seems like there would be more potential for problems with a lot more tanker trucks on the roads than using the pipeline (i.e. accidents, spills, etc.). He is convinced that there is a need for a pipeline especially since the Alma gas refinery closed. In his mind, the question that arises is whether the best place for the pipeline is to go through south Lansing. There seemed to be two alternate routes found by Mr. Green that would avoid heavily populated areas and be in a utility corridor where it can be monitored more easily. Mr. Ruff explained that this is a bigger issue than just directly for this Board and that it is a regional type issue. The MPSC in the previous case that included the part that went through Meridian where there were portions of the route approved and did not approve the Meridian part of the route. This part was withdrawn by Wolverine. Mr. Ruff stated that this needs to be handled with the cooperation of jurisdictions through a regional planning commission type of venue because Wolverine has had to request authorization of building a pipeline in each of the communities it has gone through. Delta could approve the pipeline and Lansing or Watertown could deny it or where ever and then you have this jumbled mess that is not cleanly thought through. Not only a municipality but the entire region. This is what helps drive even a NIMBY type of appearance, if that were the case. Again, one of the keys is that the Board has talked in PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 23, 2002, Page 9 a planning sense of how important it is to have a downtown that is a surviving downtown and thriving, if possible, with residents and active businesses. The downtown helps drive the commerce and livability of this City. In the same way, the City as a whole has the same influence over the region. Being the major City of the region, the City believes it is necessary to also protect it as a resource and reduce risk as necessary. The City of Lansing takes on a lot of the regional issues simply because of the price of the land or the ease of access in and around the community. There would probably be more proposals in the city for things that may be for lower income housing units, etc. because the City has the facilities to support those folks and yet in the same way, the City has to be cautious on protecting all the resources there are within the City. Ms. Patrick stated that she would like to propose an amendment or a consideration on the main motion for the Board to recommend that this matter be taken to a regional body that can address the concerns of all the jurisdictions and present the best possible alternative route. Ms. Keene stated that she would accept it that alternately what the Board would be doing is recommending denial with the recommendation that a regional body review the pipeline proposal. Mr. Frederick accepted this as well. Mr. Ruff stated that he has not contacted the Tri-County Regional Planning Commission. Mr. Frederick stated that he wanted to change one item spoken earlier. He did not believe all the alternatives were evaluated and that he agreed with Mr. Ruge on the alternative of delivering fuel by truck is definitely more hazardous than the pipeline. They did consider that alternative and he agreed that the pipeline would be a better solution than delivering the fuel by truck. Mr. Ruff stated that yes a 3.1 million gallon a day pipeline equates to a number of trucks of fuel. It does not mean that the trucks all take the same route. As a finite amount of product on the vehicle and trucks are not eliminated because the pipeline is in place. Because this pipeline facilitates a storage facility which then is distributed by trucks. The same volume that ends up going by the pipeline will end getting distributed to retailers by truck. Trucks are not being totally eliminated. The idea of not having a PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 23, 2002, Page 10 pipeline vs. a truck, if it is taken directly, there is a substitute. It does not mean all the trucks take the same route, that you have as much volume and you eliminate them because the trucks still have to go from the storage facility to retail distribution. It is basically the same or similar size trucks with fuel and gets distributed throughout this city and other communities. Mr. Smith inquired about rail transport of the fuel and stated that there is a rail line near the terminal. He questioned if this would be a potential alternative to shipping and tanker trucks. Mr. Ruff stated that it had not been discussed in house by City representatives and that he was not sure if it had been considered by Wolverine or anyone else. Some of the testimony with regard to safety, when safety was presented by the MPSC staff, the staff had some charts displaying pipelines verses tanker truck accidents verses barge. He was not sure if this had been addressed by rail. Mr. Smith was struck in reading the material that many of the same conditions that seem to apply or lead to the denial of the rejection of the Meridian route seemed to be applicable on 1-96. This would go through areas of some degree of congested people in close proximity and the big concern is that even though the pipeline may be remote, the potential contamination of ground water, in particularly the Board of Water and Light wells which are within a half mile of the proposed pipeline and then there are others that are also in close proximity. He stated that when Mr. Pollard made a comment about how people can live without the pipeline but they cannot live without fresh air and clean water, this was a point well taken. Mr. Smith stated that there was a comment made that Wolverine would exceed all of the regulatory standards and that he has no doubt they would. Standards are only as good as the agencies that promulgate them and only as good as the agencies that enforce them. It is worth considering that these agencies that promulgate the standards are also reflecting a certain political point of view and does not think it can be ignored. He found it interesting that we are in a situation where there is encouragement to eliminate the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards and not hold the auto manufacturers to more strict standards in terms of milage, i.e. increasing the needs for PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 23, 2002, Page 11 gasoline at the same time the Governor is indicating as are the auto makers that we should be trying to convert over to fuel cell technologies. If this is successful, we would be putting in a pipeline that becomes redundant because in ten to twenty years the City has switched over to fuel cell technologies or is it more of a means by which we are helping out oil companies to sell their product. If we overturn the CAFE standards as proposed, arguably to allow the auto industry to concentrate on the development of the fuel cell, this is the argument being made, then there will be an increase in demand for gasoline in the interim period. He suggested that there may be more here than meets the eye. If we do go toward the use of alternative fuel sources and if the auto industry does turn toward fuel cell technologies, he questions whether this thing is going to actually be needed over time. He questioned whether the potential risk is worth taking for something that may become unnecessary, it not, redundant. He pointed out that building this pipeline, we in no way are going to encourage the conservation of gasoline or petroleum products or necessarily by building it to encourage the development of any alternative or renewable energy sources. This is where our efforts are better concentrated. He was not convinced by Wolverine's previous safety record even though they are making their efforts but we can still look to the record of what happened in Jackson. He would not want to see this happening in south Lansing. Ms. Keene stated that she would echo the Chair's very comprehensive comments made earlier. She is concerned about the potential risk for the City's citizens. She is not convinced that the area of the I-96 route is less dense than the Meridian Township route. She would like to see alternate routes explored because she is not convinced that they were explored to the extent that they could have been. This is contrary to the Master Plan. This is not a utility corridor and this is not the place. Our comprehensive plan does not allow for this type of development of the pipeline. Because of these reasons, she votes to deny the proposal. Ms. Foster agreed that by supporting this pipeline we would not support other alternative sources. PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 23, 2002, Page 12 Ms. Keene made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick to recommend denial of Act-7-2002, Gasoline Pipeline in 1-96 Right-of-Way, Wolverine Pipe Line Company with an additional recommendation that this matter be taken before a regional body which can better consider the interest of various jurisdictions in the region. On a voice vote, the motion carried. Ms. Keene made a motion, seconded by Mr. Ruge to arise from the Committee of the Whole. On a voice vote, the motion carried. 3b. Committee of the Whole, Mr. Smith, Chair a. Act-7-2002, Gasoline Pipeline in 1-96 Right-of-Way, Wolverine Pipe Line Company Referencing the Committee of the Whole discussion on this matter and concurring with the Committee of the Whole action, Mr. Smith made a motion, seconded by Ms. Keene to recommend denial of Act-7-2002, Gasoline Pipeline in 1-96 Right-of-Way, Wolverine Pipe Line Company with an additional recommendation that this matter be taken before a regional body (i.e. Tri County Planning Regional Planning or a representative body of affected/potentially affected communities) for route consideration. . Ave Foster. . Ave Frederick Patrick .Ave Smith . Ave Keene .Ave Ruge .Ave On a Roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous; RECOMMENDATION TO DENY w/ COMMENT. 4. Executive Committee - None. C. REPORT FROM PLANNING MANAGER Mr. Ruff stated that at the last meeting Mr. Ruge asked about the East Michigan Ave. church and the parking lot expansion. The Planning Office is continuing to go through site plan review because of a resubmittal and is being reviewed at this time. PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 23, 2002, Page 13 Mr. Ruff stated that he attended the presentation by the fifth year senior Landscape Architecture students and that he interviewed as many as he could. He had them present it to him so he could better understand their concepts. Many of the graphics were excellent and that many of the concepts and some of the problems that were recognized were right on. The concepts proposed will really for vision shon for theat he ughtC City as weis aenter into designed to do. Stretch peoples imagination Master Planning. Mr. Ruff made a note that we are planning on trying to have the North Lansing Community Association, Thelma Osteen Comfort Station, on the agenda for the first meeting in May. thee are NLCA aking sure tht we have Anyone interested can do the information ready and will notify a follow up with Mr. Rieske from the Planning Office if there are questions about timing. He stated that this was a special meeting geared toward the Wolverine Pipeline. Charlene Decker, resident of 2711 Pleasant Grove Road, stated that she believed the Alma Refinery was closed for one reason only because of insufficient profits, not low profits. She also recalled that this was a headquarters based in Texas but that Wolverine is somehow a part of that. So there was a good refinery just for insufficient profits and that bothered her. She did remember reading about that one when some of this first started. She gave a comment that Mr. Mingg Brewer had said at the meeting, "we do not have this substantiated yet but the idea of why this occurred is being heard and they are saying is because they pushed up the volume and pressure on the gasoline passing through that pipe and it broke loose because it meant more profit to move this quicker." This is something that is alleged so far and could come out eventually. She thought maybe the Alma refinery was an interesting reason for shutting down a business. Mr. Smith made a motion, seconded by Ms. Keene to accept the comments from Ms. Charlene Decker. On a voice vote, the motion carried. D. PENDING ITEMS (future action required) 1. Z7 onina and Ordinance committee a _ _ Turner St.,"H" Light Industrial District to"G-1" Business District(Tabled February 11, 1998) b. Z-5-1998,401-407 E. Grand River,'F commercial District to"G-1" Business District(Tabled June 10, 1998) C. Z-8-200b, 3901 S. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd.,T"commercial to"H"Light Industrial District(Tabled June 14, 2000) d. 15-2000, e January 17 2 1 W. Street, Professional Office to"G-V Business Di PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 23, 2002, Page 14 e. P-1-2001,Tentative Preliminary Plat,Wexford Woods (Tabled June 13, May 9, 2001) f. PRD-2-2001,"Crystal Woods", Planned Residential Neighborhood (Tabled Auggust 15, 2001 g. SLU-6-2001, 51 -519 E. Grand River Ave., Church in"F-1"Commercial District (Tabled November 14, 2001) h. SLU-8-2001, 3000 W. Miller Road,Additional Parking for an Existing Church (Tabled November 14, 2001)Jolly JI. Ordinanc0e Amennd ments,Front W. Yard SetbaSpecial and Accessory Land ory Structures Church 2. Urban Development Committee a. Act-9-2000,201 E. Grand River Avenue, Proj. Sign Over ROW (Tabled June 27, 2000) b. Act-2-2002, Lansing Housing Commission Property, 310 Seymour,Acquisition for public purposes (Tabled February 26, 2002) 3. Committee of the Whole 4. Planning Board a. Act-27-2001, 313 E. Grand River Ave. (Comfort Station), Market for Sale (Tabled April 2, 2002) 8. NEW BUSINESS - None. 9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON - None. 10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS Ms. Keene commented upon the pending closure of two downtown businesses, Ma-Ah's and Parthenon, in that business vitality is improved through have downtown residents. Ms. Keene also stated the she was concerned about possible plans to remove housing from the Oliver Tower site to put in a parking lot and/or a new city hall, expressing that residential reuse of the site should be considered further. Mr. Smith mentioned that the YMCA should work with Boji to combine health facility efforts. Ms. Keene stated that the loss of the Y downtown will be to service it provided for families and children living in the downtown area. Ms. Foster mentioned that when discussing the Comfort Station again, it would be helpful if the Parks Dept. could provide information on how it handles liability with other types of facilities on City property (e.g. MSU Crew facility). Mr. Ruge requested an excused absence for the regular planning Board meeting scheduled for May 7, 2002 and to notify the members that he would also miss the May 15, 2002 Zoning & Ordinance Committee meeting. It was moved by Mr. Smith, supported by Ms. Keene, to excuse Mr. Ruge as requested. The motion carried. Mr. Ruge has an excused absence for the May 7, 2002 Planning Board meeting. PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 23, 2002, Page 15 11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS Chairman Frederick requested action on the possible illegal signs and pennants on the wholesale beauty supply building at Clemens and Kalamazoo. Also, signs are going up around the city on stakes in the right of way that appear illegal. For an example, see the northeast corner of Jolly and Aurelius. 12. ADJOURNMENT - Meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James A. Ruff, Secretary, Planning Board PB Minutes.042302.wpd Draft to Clerk Mav 3,2002 Approved May21,2002 To Clerk Mav 23,2002 Minutes of the Special Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD 7:00 p.m., Tenth Floor, Council Chambers Lansing City Hall Tuesday, April 23, 2002 1. OPENING SESSION The meeting was called to order at 7:02 p.m. by Chairman Frederick. A. Roll call. Present: Frederick, Foster, Keene, Patrick, Smith, Ruge. B. Staff Attending: Ruff, Rieske. C. Excused absence: Ms. Cordill. It was moved by Mr. Smith, supported by Ms. Patrick to approve an excused absence for Ms. Cordill. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (6-0). 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA It was moved by Mr. Smith, supported by Ms. Keene to approve the revised agenda. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (6-0). 3. COMMUNICATIONS A. The City Clerk's Office reported to the City Council on April 22, 2002 a petition in opposition to the pipeline with 374 signatures. Mr. Ruff stated that the attorneys for Wolverine Pipe Line presented some addendums to the Environmental Report which they had submitted previously in one of the six standing notebooks and that the Board members had already received that addendum within their Environmental Report. He also stated that for the record Ms. Christine Soneral from Dykema Gossett made sure the packet was delivered to the Planning Office and that the Board members were aware that the packet was here and had already been part of the their documents. 4. HEARINGS - None. 5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE Seeing no one wishing to address the Board, Mr. Frederick closed the public comment period. PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 23, 2002, Page 2 6. RECESS was not taken by the Board. 7. BUSINESS SESSION A. There were no minutes to approve at this time. B. Committee Reports 1. ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE Mr. Ruge, Chair Next meeting, Wednesday, May 15, 2002 at 4:00 p.m. 316 N. Capitol Ave., Department Conference Room. 2. URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, Ms. Patrick, Chair Ms. Patrick stated that the UDC meeting for tonight had been postponed. Next meeting, Tuesday, May 28, 2002, at 4:00 p.m. 316 N. Capitol Ave., Department Conference Room. Ms. Keene made a motion; seconded by Mr. Ruge to dissolve into the Committee of the Whole. On a voice vote, the motion carried. 3a. Committee of the Whole, Mr. Smith, Chair a. Act-7-2002, Gasoline Pipeline in 1-96 Right-of-Way, Wolverine Pipe Line Company Mr. Rieske stated that the transcript of the public hearing minutes in draft form had been distributed to the Board members. Mr. Ruff stated that he passed along to the Board in their packets a basic memorandum to remind the Board to bring their staff report and then pointed out some information to make sure the Board was aware with regard to US GAO report as well as the staff report information in the depositions. This was the MPSC staff deposition along with PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 23, 2002, Page 3 the MPSC staff reports that were part of the deposition record as well. Mr. Ruff also stated the main thing from a staff stand point was, the folks representing Wolverine have heard from him before, the concerns the City had with putting at risk, even though it was testified that the risk is debatable, the environmental concerns such as the well head protection areas and the construction that takes place in the right of way. One of the evenings that he was on his way home down 1-96 and he was going around 1-96 and saw a gentleman out in the 1-96 right of way cutting down a tree. There was an older gentleman down near the right of way edge and Edgewood Blvd. This was on the north side of the expressway along that southern route. He was cutting down a tree and he had his old pickup truck out there. People do get out in the right of way every now and then. Maybe he had a permit. Mr. Ruff stated that he thought it was quite unusual. Even though this is a limited access highway, the City believes there is activity that does take place. You can see some of the construction activity that takes place even with rebuilding some of the roadway on the west side in the township. There are 40,000 plus vehicles that travel by there every day and there is a risk involved in that. Mr. Ruff stated that he did not go beyond the most recent report of at least referring to the Blackman Township incident but if the Board noted any other, there are web sites out there that have a lot of information and pipeline incidents and testimony in front of the U.S. House of Representatives on different things regarding pipeline incidents such as one out in Bellingham, WA where a pipeline broke and ruptured and fumes filled the valley adjoining it and burning up a one and a half mile length of corridor of that valley and killing three young people. As more pipelines are built, according to the GAO report, the pipeline leaks have not necessarily dissipated in numbers, even though technology get better. There are more pipelines out there as you go over the course of time and there is a corresponding risk that goes with it. The City is concerned about risk and being the central city of the area. As the City goes, the area goes from both an economic and environmental stand point because the City helps supply water to the entire region. The Board has more recently looked at wellhead protection through the Board of Water and Light and the Wellhead Protection Program. It was recommended as an item for continued pursuit back when it came to the Board. It is also not recognized in the Master Plan as a utility corridor. 1-96 is recognized as a highway but not promoted in the Master Plan documents for utilities. While the State of Michigan PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 23, 2002, Page 4 has opened up the opportunity to have utilities in the corridor, Mr. Ruff felt a need of prudence in how it is handled. Having one type of use in a corridor may be different than another type of use just as similarly as you have different uses within varying zoning districts where some are more innocuous than others or less potentially problematic to adjoining properties, environmentally, etc. You do look at the range of uses that come through and when you make zoning decisions you also look at the range of uses even though there might a particular proposal. The City does not control or have ownership of Wolverine Pipeline. The company could change hands, management or practice. The City would not be controlling that at that point. This is a long term facility and the City has to look at the long term picture here. If it is a pipeline that should be able to be constructed and it is in a good manner that would last one hundred years or more, it is very difficult for the City to understand the promise of management of a facility of that length of time as well. Yes, there are some very positive points of having a new pipe over an old pipe but the pipe's placement is very important. Mr. Ruff stated that he felt this is a regional question and a regional type of project and would have approached the Tri-County Regional Planning Commission. This could be an avenue of pursuit because right now they are going through a regional growth study and could even incorporate this into that regional growth study as far as green ways and utility corridors for those types of things that would befit proper Master Planning principles. The Planning Office feels this is inconsistent with the surrounding area and Master Plans. It is also inconsistent to place the risk in the largest community in the tri-county area and that there could be a significant case for environmental injustice as well based upon the previous application. The comparison of the two areas as is seen in the summary by the Law Office, there is a good case for that. He stated that the Planning Office recommended that the application to run the pipeline through the City on the I- 96 corridor be denied. Mr. Ruge inquired about what recourse Wolverine had if the application is denied and whether Wolverine could apply to City Council or sue the City. Mr. Ruff stated that the recommendation will go to City Council. It was applied to the Law Office and the City Council recommended that the Planning Board do an Act 285 review to gather information PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 23, 2002, Page 5 and make a recommendation. Mr. Ruff anticipates having a letter to the Mayor tomorrow of the determination of whatever decision was rendered this evening. Then it would be on the City Council agenda Monday night for receipt and taken up as a business item. Mr. Ruff stated that he was not sure of the date City Council would take it up and that the City Council has a budget hearing the first of May. The City Council will be selecting a new Council person to fill Mr. Adado's vacated seat and some other significant items on their agenda. Mr. Ruff anticipates before the end of May, City Council would have made a recommendation. He stated that the submitted material would go to the Michigan Public Service Commission and that with the MPSC the material could become part of their records. As support for or lack of support with the applicant's application with the MPSC, potentially this could get to the point, depending upon the situation, where it could easily end up in court but that would be up to the Mayor's Office, Law Office and City Council. Mr. Frederick stated that he spent a lot of time reviewing all the options and considering everything given to the Board. At the public hearing, he asked Mr. Cole if his company had considered rather than building the 22 mile long pipeline to meet with the terminal that the company considered moving. Mr. Cole indicated that the terminal was not owned by Wolverine Pipe Line. It was owned by one of the shippers and that Mr. Cole doubted Marathon National Petroleum would consider moving the terminal. Mr. Frederick was not particularly surprised or distressed with Mr. Cole's response because he is in the pipeline business and not in the terminal building business. In all of the testimony, reports, etc. that Mr. Frederick had read, the only thing that he saw the MPSC to consider was the Meridian Township route was not suitable and that the Township recommended other routes and eventually settled on the 1-96 route. Mr. Frederick stated that not all the alternatives to this pipeline that might be safer in the long run were considered. He had read a lot of safety reasons that the MPSC had cited as a hazzard for the Meridian Township route but that they seemed to apply to the 1-96 route as well. He could not see a whole lot of difference and that there are a lot of people and a lot of development along both routes. If the Meridian Township route is not justifiable then he believed the 1-96 route is not justifiable either. One of the things MPSC cited PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 23, 2002, Page 6 in particular was the spill risk to the Saginaw esker if a spill occurred in the Meridian Township route. He couldn't understand why this didn't apply to the Mason esker that the pipeline would cross if it went down the 1-96 route. He did not see where the geology could be that much different that there would a risk to the Saginaw esker and not to the Mason esker. Although there are a number of reasons why the risk to the Mason esker would be minimal and he felt the same reason could be used with Meridan Township as well. The applicant, Mr. Cole, also stated that underground storage tanks from service stations in Lansing are leaking and that these tanks have not threatened the water supply in Lansing. Mr. Frederick considered these leaks a risk and since he has been on the commission he has attempted to at least mitigate, if not, get them cleaned up. The most recent case being a used car dealership that was approved at Jolly Road and Pennsylvania Avenue. The City was not able to get the car dealership to do any clean up but the dealership did do a more extensive cap over the top to keep ground water from percolating down. He also believed a spill would endanger many residents along the 1-96 corridor because of the number of above ground drains that cross the freeway. One of the developments that the Board had considered two meetings ago, had a drain that limited the amount of development that could take place on the property. That particular drain would be crossed by the pipeline and it would cross from the development across the 1-96 corridor and drain on the other side. He was not sure which direction the drain would flow but either it would flow north into the Sycamore Creek and drain into the businesses and residences there or drain the other way into the development that the Board considered. The MPSC cited that the development of the existing Meridian Township line right of way, business and residential, specifically Meridian Mall, is a reason to select a different route. While this may sound logical, it appears to him that the Wolverine Pipe Line Company purchased an existing right of way from a company that didn't preserve its right of way and limit development with them in the distance that they seem to think the 1-96 route provides. To him, that is a self-imposed hardship and perhaps Wolverine Pipe Line should have taken that into consideration, although Wolverine did propose initially to develop the Meridian Township route. It was the MPSC that recommended the other alternate routes. From His experience sitting with the Planning Board PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 23, 2002, Page 7 and Board of Zoning and Appeals, self-imposed hardships are not a justification to move a development from one place to another. Self-imposed hardships are just that and the company or the applicant has to live with them. Mr. Ruge inquired about the City hiring an expert to assess alternative routes where the pipeline could be built. Mr. Ruff stated that the City hired an appraiser, Mr. Charles Green, who also had experience in recommending right of ways for electrical service corridors. Mr. Green proposed two alternative routes that would connect to their system and then there were four routes proposed by the MPSC staff in their first report on the Meridian Township case. Mr. Ruff referred to the testimony and exhibits of Mr. Green. In the testimony are the two routes he described including the maps. Mr. Ruff stated that this is a regional type of issue and that these areas are outside the city of Lansing. Primarily what the Board is doing today is addressing the pipeline coming through the city of Lansing. Ms. Patrick inquired about the specific authority that gives the MPSC jurisdiction over need and siting or routing of a petroleum pipeline. Mr. Ruff stated that he could not answer the question. Ms. Patrick also inquired about the county taking a position on the additional routes that were proposed. Mr. Ruff stated that the MPCS has only addressed those routes that have been applied for and that MPSC may not have addressed them fully. Mr. Ruff stated that the Ingham County Commissioner, Ms. Lisa Dedden, was an intervener in this case as well. Ms. Keene inquired if Ms. Dedden was an intervener or her own behalf or on behalf of the County. Mr. Ruff indicated that it may have been on Ms. Dedden's own behalf as a County official and that Ms. Dedden represents District 10, which includes most of this area of Lansing. Mr. Ruff stated it was his understanding that the ALJ granted intervener status to Ms. Dedden specifically. Mr. Ruge stated that Mr. Green recommended two alternate routes that both seem to follow power line right of ways and inquired about any discussion or testimony that indicated it would be unsafe to have a pipeline in the same proximity as power lines. Mr. Ruff did not recall there being any testimony of direct correlation of danger between the power lines and the hazardous liquid pipeline. Mr. Ruff stated that PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 23, 2002, Page 8 there was some testimony by Mr. Proudfoot in the material he had given to the Board members because there are utilities within that corridor or in a corridor, whether it is this one or the Michigan Electric corridor, that there would potentially be more sets of the utility eyes watching the corridor in general. This had its advantages that it was not just isolated to one utility or another. If there were people reviewing the right of way or the easement for either the electric or the pipeline and had seen some electrical problem, maybe it would make it easier for them to determine more specifically the endangerment to their facility. This was part of Mr. Proudfoot's cross examination in some of the materials given to the Board. Mr. Ruge is very concerned that the Board not be seen as suffering from the NIMBY syndrome. He stated that it is very important for the Board to explore if there are other viable routes that are actually better than the route being proposed. It appears that there is definitely a need for the pipeline and that it seems like there would be more potential for problems with a lot more tanker trucks on the roads than using the pipeline (i.e. accidents, spills, etc.). He is convinced that there is a need for a pipeline especially since the Alma gas refinery closed. In his mind, the question that arises is whether the best place for the pipeline is to go through south Lansing. There seemed to be two alternate routes found by Mr. Green that would avoid heavily populated areas and be in a utility corridor where it can be monitored more easily. Mr. Ruff explained that this is a bigger issue than just directly for this Board and that it is a regional type issue. The MPSC in the previous case that included the part that went through Meridian where there were portions of the route approved and did not approve the Meridian part of the route. This part was withdrawn by Wolverine. Mr. Ruff stated that this needs to be handled with the cooperation of jurisdictions through a regional planning commission type of venue because Wolverine has had to request authorization of building a pipeline in each of the communities it has gone through. Delta could approve the pipeline and Lansing or Watertown could deny it or where ever and then you have this jumbled mess that is not cleanly thought through. Not only a municipality but the entire region. This is what helps drive even a NIMBY type of appearance, if that were the case. Again, one of the keys is that the Board has talked in PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 23, 2002, Page 9 a planning sense of how important it is to have a downtown that is a surviving downtown and thriving, if possible, with residents and active businesses. The downtown helps drive the commerce and livability of this City. In the same way, the City as a whole has the same influence over the region. Being the major City of the region, the City believes it is necessary to also protect it as a resource and reduce risk as necessary. The City of Lansing takes on a lot of the regional issues simply because of the price of the land or the ease of access in and around the community. There would probably be more proposals in the city for things that may be for lower income housing units, etc. because the City has the facilities to support those folks and yet in the same way, the City has to be cautious on protecting all the resources there are within the City. Ms. Patrick stated that she would like to propose an amendment or a consideration on the main motion for the Board to recommend that this matter be taken to a regional body that can address the concerns of all the jurisdictions and present the best possible alternative route. Ms. Keene stated that she would accept it that alternately what the Board would be doing is recommending denial with the recommendation that a regional body review the pipeline proposal. Mr. Frederick accepted this as well. Mr. Ruff stated that he has not contacted the Tri-County Regional Planning Commission. Mr. Frederick stated that he wanted to change one item spoken earlier. He did not believe all the alternatives were evaluated and that he agreed with Mr. Ruge on the alternative of delivering fuel by truck is definitely more hazardous than the pipeline. They did consider that alternative and he agreed that the pipeline would be a better solution than delivering the fuel by truck. Mr. Ruff stated that yes a 3.1 million gallon a day pipeline equates to a number of trucks of fuel. It does not mean that the trucks all take the same route. As a finite amount of product on the vehicle and trucks are not eliminated because the pipeline is in place. Because this pipeline facilitates a storage facility which then is distributed by trucks. The same volume that ends up going by the pipeline will end getting distributed to retailers by truck. Trucks are not being totally eliminated. The idea of not having a PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 23, 2002, Page 10 pipeline vs. a truck, if it is taken directly, there is a substitute. It does not mean all the trucks take the same route, that you have as much volume and you eliminate them because the trucks still have to go from the storage facility to retail distribution. It is basically the same or similar size trucks with fuel and gets distributed throughout this city and other communities. Mr. Smith inquired about rail transport of the fuel and stated that there is a rail line near the terminal. He questioned if this would be a potential alternative to shipping and tanker trucks. Mr. Ruff stated that it had not been discussed in house by City representatives and that he was not sure if it had been considered by Wolverine or anyone else. Some of the testimony with regard to safety, when safety was presented by the MPSC staff, the staff had some charts displaying pipelines verses tanker truck accidents verses barge. He was not sure if this had been addressed by rail. Mr. Smith was struck in reading the material that many of the same conditions that seem to apply or lead to the denial of the rejection of the Meridian route seemed to be applicable on 1-96. This would go through areas of some degree of congested people in close proximity and the big concern is that even though the pipeline may be remote, the potential contamination of ground water, in particularly the Board of Water and Light wells which are within a half mile of the proposed pipeline and then there are others that are also in close proximity. He stated that when Mr. Pollard made a comment about how people can live without the pipeline but they cannot live without fresh air and clean water, this was a point well taken. Mr. Smith stated that there was a comment made that Wolverine would exceed all of the regulatory standards and that he has no doubt they would. Standards are only as good as the agencies that promulgate them and only as good as the agencies that enforce them. It is worth considering that these agencies that promulgate the standards are also reflecting a certain political point of view and does not think it can be ignored. He found it interesting that we are in a situation where there is encouragement to eliminate the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards and not hold the auto manufacturers to more strict standards in terms of milage, i.e. increasing the needs for PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 23, 2002, Page 11 gasoline at the same time the Governor is indicating as are the auto makers that we should be trying to convert over to fuel cell technologies. If this is successful, we would be putting in a pipeline that becomes redundant because in ten to twenty years the City has switched over to fuel cell technologies or is it more of a means by which we are helping out oil companies to sell their product. If we overturn the CAFE standards as proposed, arguably to allow the auto industry to concentrate on the development of the fuel cell, this is the argument being made, then there will be an increase in demand for gasoline in the interim period. He suggested that there may be more here than meets the eye. If we do go toward the use of alternative fuel sources and if the auto industry does turn toward fuel cell technologies, he questions whether this thing is going to actually be needed over time. He questioned whether the potential risk is worth taking for something that may become unnecessary, it not, redundant. He pointed out that building this pipeline, we in no way are going to encourage the conservation of gasoline or petroleum products or necessarily by building it to encourage the development of any alternative or renewable energy sources. This is where our efforts are better concentrated. He was not convinced by Wolverine's previous safety record even though they are making their efforts but we can still look to the record of what happened in Jackson. He would not want to see this happening in south Lansing. Ms. Keene stated that she would echo the Chair's very comprehensive comments made earlier. She is concerned about the potential risk for the City's citizens. She is not convinced that the area of the 1-96 route is less dense than the Meridian Township route. She would like to see alternate routes explored because she is not convinced that they were explored to the extent that they could have been. This is contrary to the Master Plan. This is not a utility corridor and this is not the place. Our comprehensive plan does not allow for this type of development of the pipeline. Because of these reasons, she votes to deny the proposal. Ms. Foster agreed that by supporting this pipeline we would not support other alternative sources. PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 23, 2002, Page 12 Ms. Keene made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick to recommend denial of Act-7-2002, Gasoline Pipeline in 1-96 Right-of-Way, Wolverine Pipe Line Company with an additional recommendation that this matter be taken before a regional body which can better consider the interest of various jurisdictions in the region. On a voice vote, the motion carried. Ms. Keene made a motion, seconded by Mr. Ruge to arise from the Committee of the Whole. On a voice vote, the motion carried. 3b. Committee of the Whole, Mr. Smith, Chair a. Act-7-2002, Gasoline Pipeline in 1-96 Right-of-Way, Wolverine Pipe Line Company Referencing the Committee of the Whole discussion on this matter and concurring with the Committee of the Whole action, Mr. Smith made a motion, seconded by Ms. Keene to recommend denial of Act-7-2002, Gasoline Pipeline in 1-96 Right-of-Way, Wolverine Pipe Line Company with an additional recommendation that this matter be taken before a regional body (i.e. Tri County Planning Regional Planning or a representative body of affected/potentially affected communities) for route consideration. Frederick. . . Ave Foster. . . Ave Patrick . .Aye Smith . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Keene. . .Ave Ruge . .Ave On a Roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous; RECOMMENDATION TO DENY w/ COMMENT. 4. Executive Committee - None. C. REPORT FROM PLANNING MANAGER Mr. Ruff stated that at the last meeting Mr. Ruge asked about the East Michigan Ave. church and the parking lot expansion. The Planning Office is continuing to go through site plan review because of a resubmittal and is being reviewed at this time. PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 23, 2002, Page 13 Mr. Ruff stated that he attended the presentation by the fifth year senior Landscape Architecture students and that he interviewed as many as he could. He had them present it to him so he could better understand their concepts. Many of the graphics were excellent and that many of the concepts and some of the problems that were recognized were right on. The concepts proposed will really do what he thought this was designed to do. Stretch peoples imagination for vision for the City as we enter into Master Planning. Mr. Ruff made a note that we are planning on trying to have the North Lansing Community Association, Thelma Osteen Comfort Station, on the agenda for the first meeting in May. We are making sure that we have all the information ready and will notify the NLCA. Anyone interested can do a follow up with Mr. Rieske from the Planning Office if there are questions about timing. He stated that this was a special meeting geared toward the Wolverine Pipeline. Charlene Decker, resident of 2711 Pleasant Grove Road, stated that she believed the Alma Refinery was closed for one reason only because of insufficient profits, not low profits. She also recalled that this was a headquarters based in Texas but that Wolverine is somehow a part of that. So there was a good refinery just for insufficient profits and that bothered her. She did remember reading about that one when some of this first started. She gave a comment that Mr. Mingg Brewer had said at the meeting, "we do not have this substantiated yet but the idea of why this occurred is being heard and they are saying is because they pushed up the volume and pressure on the gasoline passing through that pipe and it broke loose because it meant more profit to move this quicker." This is something that is alleged so far and could come out eventually. She thought maybe the Alma refinery was an interesting reason for shutting down a business. Mr. Smith made a motion, seconded by Ms. Keene to accept the comments from Ms. Charlene Decker. On a voice vote, the motion carried. D. PENDING ITEMS (future action required) 1. Zoning and Ordinance Committee . -a - urner St.,"H" Light Industrial District to"G-1"Business District(fabled February 11 1998) b. Z-5-199 ,401-407 E.Grand River,"F"Commercial District to"G-1"Business District(Tabled June 10, 1998) C. Z-8-2000, 3901 S. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd.,"F"Commercial to"H" Light Industrial District(Tabled June 14,2000 d. Z-15-2000, 301 W. Lenawee Street, Prolessional Office to"G-1"Business District(Tabled January 17,2001) PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 23, 2002, Page 14 e. P-1-2001,Tentative Preliminary Plat,Wexford Woods(Tabled June 13, May 9, 2001) f. PRD-2-2001,"Crystal Woods", Planned Residential Neighborhood (Tabled August 15,2001)) g. SLU-6-2001,51)-519 E. Grand River Ave., Church in"F-1"Commercial District (Tabled November 14,2001) h. SLU-8-2001, 3000 W. Miller Road,Additional Parking for an Existing Church (Tabled November 14,2001) i. SLU-1-2002, 1400 Block,W.Jolly Road, Special Land Use Permit-New Church 1 Ordinance Amendments, Front Yard Setbacks and Accessory Structures 2. Urban Development Committee a. Act-9-2000,201 E. Grand River Avenue, Proj. Sign Over ROW (Tabled June 27, 2000) b. Act-2-2002, Lansing Housing Commission Property, 310 Seymour,Acquisition for public purposes (Tabled February 26,2002) 3. Committee of the Whole 4. Planning Board a. Act-27-2001, 313 E. Grand River Ave. (Comfort Station), Market for Sale(Tabled April 2,2002) 8. NEW BUSINESS - None. 9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON - None. 10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS Ms. Keene commented upon the pending closure of two downtown businesses, Ma-Ah's and Parthenon, in that business vitality is improved through have downtown residents. Ms. Keene also stated the she was concerned about possible plans to remove housing from the Oliver Tower site to put in a parking lot and/or a new city hall, expressing that residential reuse of the site should be considered further. Mr. Smith mentioned that the YMCA should work with Boji to combine health facility efforts. Ms. Keene stated that the loss of the Y downtown will be to service it provided for families and children living in the downtown area. Ms. Foster mentioned that when discussing the Comfort Station again, it would be helpful if the Parks Dept. could provide information on how it handles liability with other types of facilities on City property (e.g. MSU Crew facility). Mr. Ruge requested an excused absence for the regular planning Board meeting scheduled for May 7, 2002 and to notify the members that he would also miss the May 15, 2002 Zoning & Ordinance Committee meeting. It was moved by Mr. Smith, supported by Ms. Keene, to excuse Mr. Ruge as requested. The motion carried. Mr. Ruge has an excused absence for the May 7, 2002 Planning Board meeting. PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 23, 2002, Page 15 11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS Chairman Frederick requested action on the possible illegal signs and pennants on the wholesale beauty supply building at Clemens and Kalamazoo. Also, signs are going up around the city on stakes in the right of way that appear illegal. For an example, see the northeast corner of Jolly and Aurelius. 12. ADJOURNMENT - Meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James A. Ruff, Secretary, Planning Board PB Minutes.042302.wpd Draft to Clerk May 3,2002 Approved 2002 To Clerk 2002 Minutes of the Special Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD 7:00 p.m., Tenth Floor, Council Chambers Lansing City Hall Tuesday, April 23, 2002 1. OPENING SESSION The meeting was called to order at 7:02 p.m. by Chairman Frederick. A. Roll call. Present: Frederick, Foster, Keene, Patrick, Smith, Ruge. B. Staff Attending: Ruff, Rieske. C. Excused absence: Ms. Cordill. It was moved by Mr. Smith, supported by Ms. Patrick to approve an excused absence for Ms. Cordill. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (6-0). 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA It was moved by Mr. Smith, supported by Ms. Keene to approve the revised agenda. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (6-0). 3. COMMUNICATIONS A. The City Clerk's Office reported to the City Council on April 22, 2002 a petition in opposition to the pipeline with 374 signatures. Mr. Ruff stated that the attorneys for Wolverine Pipe Line presented some addendums to the Environmental Report which they had submitted previously in one of the six standing notebooks and that the Board members had already received that addendum within their Environmental Report. He also stated that for the record Ms. Christine Soneral from Dykema Gossett made sure the packet was delivered to the Planning Office and that the Board members were aware that the packet was here and had already been part of the their documents. 4. HEARINGS - None. 5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE Seeing no one wishing to address the Board, Mr. Frederick closed the public comment period. PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 23, 2002, Page 2 6. RECESS was not taken by the Board. 7. BUSINESS SESSION A. There were no minutes to approve at this time. B. Committee Reports 1. ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE, Mr. Ruge, Chair Next meeting, Wednesday, May 15, 2002 at 4:00 p.m. 316 N. Capitol Ave., Department Conference Room. 2. URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, Ms. Patrick, Chair Ms. Patrick stated that the UDC meeting for tonight had been postponed. Next meeting, Tuesday, May 28, 2002, at 4:00 p.m. 316 N. Capitol Ave., Department Conference Room. Ms. Keene made a motion; seconded by Mr. Ruge to dissolve into the Committee of the Whole. On a voice vote, the motion carried. 3a. Committee of the Whole, Mr. Smith, Chair a. Act-7-2002, Gasoline Pipeline in 1-96 Right-of-Way, Wolverine Pipe Line Company Mr. Rieske stated that the transcript of the public hearing minutes in draft form had been distributed to the Board members. Mr. Ruff stated that he passed along to the Board in their packets a basic memorandum to remind the Board to bring their staff report and then pointed out some information to make sure the Board was aware with regard to US GAO report as well as the staff report information in the depositions. This was the MPSC staff deposition along with PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 23, 2002, Page 3 the MPSC staff reports that were part of the deposition record as well. Mr. Ruff also stated the main thing from a staff stand point was, the folks representing Wolverine have heard from him before, the concerns the City had with putting at risk, even though it was testified that the risk is debatable, the environmental concerns such as the well head protection areas and the construction that takes place in the right of way. One of the evenings that he was on his way home down 1-96 and he was going around 1-96 and saw a gentleman out in the 1-96 right of way cutting down a tree. There was an older gentleman down near the right of way edge and Edgewood Blvd. This was on the north side of the expressway along that southern route. He was cutting down a tree and he had his old pickup truck out there. People do get out in the right of way every now and then. Maybe he had a permit. Mr. Ruff stated that he thought it was quite unusual. Even though this is a limited access highway, the City believes there is activity that does take place. You can see some of the construction activity that takes place even with rebuilding some of the roadway on the west side in the township. There are 40,000 plus vehicles that travel by there every day and there is a risk involved in that. Mr. Ruff stated that he did not go beyond the most recent report of at least referring to the Blackman Township incident but if the Board noted any other, there are web sites out there that have a lot of information and pipeline incidents and testimony in front of the U.S. House of Representatives on different things regarding pipeline incidents such as one out in Bellingham, WA where a pipeline broke and ruptured and fumes filled the valley adjoining it and burning up a one and a half mile length of corridor of that valley and killing three young people. As more pipelines are built, according to the GAO report, the pipeline leaks have not necessarily dissipated in numbers, even though technology get better. There are more pipelines out there as you go over the course of time and there is a corresponding risk that goes with it. The City is concerned about risk and being the central city of the area. As the City goes, the area goes from both an economic and environmental stand point because the City helps supply water to the entire region. The Board has more recently looked at wellhead protection through the Board of Water and Light and the Wellhead Protection Program. It was recommended as an item for continued pursuit back when it came to the Board. It is also not recognized in the Master Plan as a utility corridor. 1-96 is recognized as a highway but not promoted in the Master Plan documents for utilities. While the State of Michigan PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 23, 2002, Page 4 has opened up the opportunity to have utilities in the corridor, Mr. Ruff felt a need of prudence in how it is handled. Having one type of use in a corridor may be different than another type of use just as similarly as you have different uses within varying zoning districts where some are more innocuous than others or less potentially problematic to adjoining properties, environmentally, etc. You do look at the range of uses that come through and when you make zoning decisions you also look at the range of uses even though there might a particular proposal. The City does not control or have ownership of Wolverine Pipeline. The company could change hands, management or practice. The City would not be controlling that at that point. This is a long term facility and the City has to look at the long term picture here. If it is a pipeline that should be able to be constructed and it is in a good manner that would last one hundred years or more, it is very difficult for the City to understand the promise of management of a facility of that length of time as well. Yes, there are some very positive points of having a new pipe over an old pipe but the pipe's placement is very important. Mr. Ruff stated that he felt this is a regional question and a regional type of project and would have approached the Tri-County Regional Planning Commission. This could be an avenue of pursuit because right now they are going through a regional growth study and could even incorporate this into that regional growth study as far as green ways and utility corridors for those types of things that would befit proper Master Planning principles. The Planning Office feels this is inconsistent with the surrounding area and Master Plans. It is also inconsistent to place the risk in the largest community in the tri-county area and that there could be a significant case for environmental injustice as well based upon the previous application. The comparison of the two areas as is seen in the summary by the Law Office, there is a good case for that. He stated that the Planning Office recommended that the application to run the pipeline through the City on the I- 96 corridor be denied. Mr. Ruge inquired about what recourse Wolverine had if the application is denied and whether Wolverine could apply to City Council or sue the City. Mr. Ruff stated that the recommendation will go to City Council. It was applied to the Law Office and the City Council recommended that the Planning Board do an Act 285 review to gather information PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 23, 2002, Page 5 and make a recommendation. Mr. Ruff anticipates having a letter to the Mayor tomorrow of the determination of whatever decision was rendered this evening. Then it would be on the City Council agenda Monday night for receipt and taken up as a business item. Mr. Ruff stated that he was not sure of the date City Council would take it up and that the City Council has a budget hearing the first of May. The City Council will be selecting a new Council person to fill Mr. Adado's vacated seat and some other significant items on their agenda. Mr. Ruff anticipates before the end of May, City Council would have made a recommendation. He stated that the submitted material would go to the Michigan Public Service Commission and that with the MPSC the material could become part of their records. As support for or lack of support with the applicant's application with the MPSC, potentially this could get to the point, depending upon the situation, where it could easily end up in court but that would be up to the Mayor's Office, Law Office and City Council. Mr. Frederick stated that he spent a lot of time reviewing all the options and considering everything given to the Board. At the public hearing, he asked Mr. Cole if his company had considered rather than building the 22 mile long pipeline to meet with the terminal that the company considered moving. Mr. Cole indicated that the terminal was not owned by Wolverine Pipe Line. It was owned by one of the shippers and that Mr. Cole doubted Marathon National Petroleum would consider moving the terminal. Mr. Frederick was not particularly surprised or distressed with Mr. Cole's response because he is in the pipeline business and not in the terminal building business. In all of the testimony, reports, etc. that Mr. Frederick had read, the only thing that he saw the MPSC to consider was the Meridian Township route was not suitable and that the Township recommended other routes and eventually settled on the 1-96 route. Mr. Frederick stated that not all the alternatives to this pipeline that might be safer in the long run were considered. He had read a lot of safety reasons that the MPSC had cited as a hazzard for the Meridian Township route but that they seemed to apply to the 1-96 route as well. He could not see a whole lot of difference and that there are a lot of people and a lot of development along both routes. If the Meridian Township route is not justifiable then he believed the 1-96 route is not justifiable either. One of the things MPSC cited PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 23, 2002, Page 6 in particular was the spill risk to the Saginaw esker if a spill occurred in the Meridian Township route. He couldn't understand why this didn't apply to the Mason esker that the pipeline would cross if it went down the 1-96 route. He did not see where the geology could be that much different that there would a risk to the Saginaw esker and not to the Mason esker. Although there are a number of reasons why the risk to the Mason esker would be minimal and he felt the same reason could be used with Meridan Township as well. The applicant, Mr. Cole, also stated that underground storage tanks from service stations in Lansing are leaking and that these tanks have not threatened the water supply in Lansing. Mr. Frederick considered these leaks a risk and since he has been on the commission he has attempted to at least mitigate, if not, get them cleaned up. The most recent case being a used car dealership that was approved at Jolly Road and Pennsylvania Avenue. The City was not able to get the car dealership to do any clean up but the dealership did do a more extensive cap over the top to keep ground water from percolating down. He also believed a spill would endanger many residents along the 1-96 corridor because of the number of above ground drains that cross the freeway. One of the developments that the Board had considered two meetings ago, had a drain that limited the amount of development that could take place on the property. That particular drain would be crossed by the pipeline and it would cross from the development across the 1-96 corridor and drain on the other side. He was not sure which direction the drain would flow but either it would flow north into the Sycamore Creek and drain into the businesses and residences there or drain the other way into the development that the Board considered. The MPSC cited that the development of the existing Meridian Township line right of way, business and residential, specifically Meridian Mall, is a reason to select a different route. While this may sound logical, it appears to him that the Wolverine Pipe Line Company purchased an existing right of way from a company that didn't preserve its right of way and limit development with them in the distance that they seem to think the 1-96 route provides. To him, that is a self-imposed hardship and perhaps Wolverine Pipe Line should have taken that into consideration, although Wolverine did propose initially to develop the Meridian Township route. It was the MPSC that recommended the other alternate routes. From His experience sitting with the Planning Board PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 23, 2002, Page 7 and Board of Zoning and Appeals, self-imposed hardships are not a justification to move a development from one place to another. Self-imposed hardships are just that and the company or the applicant has to live with them. Mr. Ruge inquired about the City hiring an expert to assess alternative routes where the pipeline could be built. Mr. Ruff stated that the City hired an appraiser, Mr. Charles Green, who also had experience in recommending right of ways for electrical service corridors. Mr. Green proposed two alternative routes that would connect to their system and then there were four routes proposed by the MPSC staff in their first report on the Meridian Township case. Mr. Ruff referred to the testimony and exhibits of Mr. Green. In the testimony are the two routes he described including the maps. Mr. Ruff stated that this is a regional type of issue and that these areas are outside the city of Lansing. Primarily what the Board is doing today is addressing the pipeline coming through the city of Lansing. Ms. Patrick inquired about the specific authority that gives the MPSC jurisdiction over need and siting or routing of a petroleum pipeline. Mr. Ruff stated that he could not answer the question. Ms. Patrick also inquired about the county taking a position on the additional routes that were proposed. Mr. Ruff stated that the MPCS has only addressed those routes that have been applied for and that MPSC may not have addressed them fully. Mr. Ruff stated that the Ingham County Commissioner, Ms. Lisa Dedden, was an intervener in this case as well. Ms. Keene inquired if Ms. Dedden was an intervener or her own behalf or on behalf of the County. Mr. Ruff indicated that it may have been on Ms. Dedden's own behalf as a County official and that Ms. Dedden represents District 10, which includes most of this area of Lansing. Mr. Ruff stated it was his understanding that the AU granted intervener status to Ms. Dedden specifically. Mr. Ruge stated that Mr. Green recommended two alternate routes that both seem to follow power line right of ways and inquired about any discussion or testimony that indicated it would be unsafe to have a pipeline in the same proximity as power lines. Mr. Ruff did not recall there being any testimony of direct correlation of danger between the power lines and the hazardous liquid pipeline. Mr. Ruff stated that PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 23, 2002, Page 8 there was some testimony by Mr. Proudfoot in the material he had given to the Board members because there are utilities within that corridor or in a corridor, whether it is this one or the Michigan Electric corridor, that there would potentially be more sets of the utility eyes watching the corridor in general. This had its advantages that it was not just isolated to one utility or another. If there were people reviewing the right of way or the easement for either the electric or the pipeline and had seen some electrical problem, maybe it would make it easier for them to determine more specifically the endangerment to their facility. This was part of Mr. Proudfoot's cross examination in some of the materials given to the Board. Mr. Ruge is very concerned that the Board not be seen as suffering from the NIMBY syndrome. He stated that it is very important for the Board to explore if there are other viable routes that are actually better than the route being proposed. It appears that there is definitely a need for the pipeline and that it seems like there would be more potential for problems with a lot more tanker trucks on the roads than using the pipeline (i.e. accidents, spills, etc.). He is convinced that there is a need for a pipeline especially since the Alma gas refinery closed. In his mind, the question that arises is whether the best place for the pipeline is to go through south Lansing. There seemed to be two alternate routes found by Mr. Green that would avoid heavily populated areas and be in a utility corridor where it can be monitored more easily. Mr. Ruff explained that this is a bigger issue than just directly for this Board and that it is a regional type issue. The MPSC in the previous case that included the part that went through Meridian where there were portions of the route approved and did not approve the Meridian part of the route. This part was withdrawn by Wolverine. Mr. Ruff stated that this needs to be handled with the cooperation of jurisdictions through a regional planning commission type of venue because Wolverine has had to request authorization of building a pipeline in each of the communities it has gone through. Delta could approve the pipeline and Lansing or Watertown could deny it or where ever and then you have this jumbled mess that is not cleanly thought through. Not only a municipality but the entire region. This is what helps drive even a NIMBY type of appearance, if that were the case. Again, one of the keys is that the Board has talked in PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 23, 2002, Page 9 a planning sense of how important it is to have a downtown that is a surviving downtown and thriving, if possible, with residents and active businesses. The downtown helps drive the commerce and livability of this City. In the same way, the City as a whole has the same influence over the region. Being the major City of the region, the City believes it is necessary to also protect it as a resource and reduce risk as necessary. The City of Lansing takes on a lot of the regional issues simply because of the price of the land or the ease of access in and around the community. There would probably be more proposals in the city for things that may be for lower income housing units, etc. because the City has the facilities to support those folks and yet in the same way, the City has to be cautious on protecting all the resources there are within the City. Ms. Patrick stated that she would like to propose an amendment or a consideration on the main motion for the Board to recommend that this matter be taken to a regional body that can address the concerns of all the jurisdictions and present the best possible alternative route. Ms. Keene stated that she would accept it that alternately what the Board would be doing is recommending denial with the recommendation that a regional body review the pipeline proposal. Mr. Frederick accepted this as well. Mr. Ruff stated that he has not contacted the Tri-County Regional Planning Commission. Mr. Frederick stated that he wanted to change one item spoken earlier. He did not believe all the alternatives were evaluated and that he agreed with Mr. Ruge on the alternative of delivering fuel by truck is definitely more hazardous than the pipeline. They did consider that alternative and he agreed that the pipeline would be a better solution than delivering the fuel by truck. Mr. Ruff stated that yes a 3.1 million gallon a day pipeline equates to a number of trucks of fuel. It does not mean that the trucks all take the same route. As a finite amount of product on the vehicle and trucks are not eliminated because the pipeline is in place. Because this pipeline facilitates a storage facility which then is distributed by trucks. The same volume that ends up going by the pipeline will end getting distributed to retailers by truck. Trucks are not being totally eliminated. The idea of not having a PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 23, 2002, Page 10 pipeline vs. a truck, if it is taken directly, there is a substitute. It does not mean all the trucks take the same route, that you have as much volume and you eliminate them because the trucks still have to go from the storage facility to retail distribution. It is basically the same or similar size trucks with fuel and gets distributed throughout this city and other communities. Mr. Smith inquired about rail transport of the fuel and stated that there is a rail line near the terminal. He questioned if this would be a potential alternative to shipping and tanker trucks. Mr. Ruff stated that it had not been discussed in house by City representatives and that he was not sure if it had been considered by Wolverine or anyone else. Some of the testimony with regard to safety, when safety was presented by the MPSC staff, the staff had some charts displaying pipelines verses tanker truck accidents verses barge. He was not sure if this had been addressed by rail. Mr. Smith was struck in reading the material that many of the same conditions that seem to apply or lead to the denial of the rejection of the Meridian route seemed to be applicable on 1-96. This would go through areas of some degree of congested people in close proximity and the big concern is that even though the pipeline may be remote, the potential contamination of ground water, in particularly the Board of Water and Light wells which are within a half mile of the proposed pipeline and then there are others that are also in close proximity. He stated that when Mr. Pollard made a comment about how people can live without the pipeline but they cannot live without fresh air and clean water, this was a point well taken. Mr. Smith stated that there was a comment made that Wolverine would exceed all of the regulatory standards and that he has no doubt they would. Standards are only as good as the agencies that promulgate them and only as good as the agencies that enforce them. It is worth considering that these agencies that promulgate the standards are also reflecting a certain political point of view and does not think it can be ignored. He found it interesting that we are in a situation where there is encouragement to eliminate the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards and not hold the auto manufacturers to more strict standards in terms of milage, i.e. increasing the needs for PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 23, 2002, Page 11 gasoline at the same time the Governor is indicating as are the auto makers that we should be trying to convert over to fuel cell technologies. If this is successful, we would be putting in a pipeline that becomes redundant because in ten to twenty years the City has switched over to fuel cell technologies or is it more of a means by which we are helping out oil companies to sell their product. If we overturn the CAFE standards as proposed, arguably to allow the auto industry to concentrate on the development of the fuel cell, this is the argument being made, then there will be an increase in demand for gasoline in the interim period. He suggested that there may be more here than meets the eye. If we do go toward the use of alternative fuel sources and if the auto industry does turn toward fuel cell technologies, he questions whether this thing is going to actually be needed over time. He questioned whether the potential risk is worth taking for something that may become unnecessary, it not, redundant. He pointed out that building this pipeline, we in no way are going to encourage the conservation of gasoline or petroleum products or necessarily by building it to encourage the development of any alternative or renewable energy sources. This is where our efforts are better concentrated. He was not convinced by Wolverine's previous safety record even though they are making their efforts but we can still look to the record of what happened in Jackson. He would not want to see this happening in south Lansing. Ms. Keene stated that she would echo the Chair's very comprehensive comments made earlier. She is concerned about the potential risk for the City's citizens. She is not convinced that the area of the 1-96 route is less dense than the Meridian Township route. She would like to see alternate routes explored because she is not convinced that they were explored to the extent that they could have been. This is contrary to the Master Plan. This is not a utility corridor and this is not the place. Our comprehensive plan does not allow for this type of development of the pipeline. Because of these reasons, she votes to deny the proposal. Ms. Foster agreed that by supporting this pipeline we would not support other alternative sources. PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 23, 2002, Page 12 Ms. Keene made a motion, seconded by Mr. Frederick to recommend denial of Act-7-2002, Gasoline Pipeline in 1-96 Right-of-Way, Wolverine Pipe Line Company with an additional recommendation that this matter be taken before a regional body which can better consider the interest of various jurisdictions in the region. On a voice vote, the motion carried. Ms. Keene made a motion, seconded by Mr. Ruge to arise from the Committee of the Whole. On a voice vote, the motion carried. 3b. Committee of the Whole, Mr. Smith, Chair a. Act-7-2002, Gasoline Pipeline in 1-96 Right-of-Way, Wolverine Pipe Line Company Referencing the Committee of the Whole discussion on this matter and concurring with the Committee of the Whole action, Mr. Smith made a motion, seconded by Ms. Keene to recommend denial of Act-7-2002, Gasoline Pipeline in 1-96 Right-of-Way, Wolverine Pipe Line Company with an additional recommendation that this matter be taken before a regional body (i.e. Tri County Planning Regional Planning or a representative body of affected/potentially affected communities) for route consideration. Frederick. . . Ave Foster. • Ave Patrick . .Ave Smith . Ave Keene. . .Ave Ruge .Ave On a Roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous; RECOMMENDATION TO DENY w/ COMMENT. 4. Executive Committee - None. C. REPORT FROM PLANNING MANAGER Mr. Ruff stated that at the last meeting Mr. Ruge asked about the East Michigan Ave. church and the parking lot expansion. The Planning Office is continuing to go through site plan review because of a resubmittal and is being reviewed at this time. PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 23, 2002, Page 13 Mr. Ruff stated that he attended the presentation by the fifth year senior Landscape Architecture students and that he interviewed as many as he could. He had them present it to him so he could better understand their concepts. Many of the graphics were excellent and that many of the concepts and some of the problems that were recognized were right on. The concepts proposed will really do what he thought this was designed to do. Stretch peoples imagination for vision for the City as we enter into Master Planning. Mr. Ruff made a note that we are planning on trying to have the North Lansing Community Association, Thelma Osteen Comfort Station, on the agenda for the first meeting in May. We are making sure that we have all the information ready and will notify the NLCA. Anyone interested can do a follow up with Mr. Rieske from the Planning Office if there are questions about timing. He stated that this was a special meeting geared toward the Wolverine Pipeline. Charlene Decker, resident of 2711 Pleasant Grove Road, stated that she believed the Alma Refinery was closed for one reason only because of insufficient profits, not low profits. She also recalled that this was a headquarters based in Texas but that Wolverine is somehow a part of that. So there was a good refinery just for insufficient profits and that bothered her. She did remember reading about that one when some of this first started. She gave a comment that Mr. Mingg Brewer had said at the meeting, "we do not have this substantiated yet but the idea of why this occurred is being heard and they are saying is because they pushed up the volume and pressure on the gasoline passing through that pipe and it broke loose because it meant more profit to move this quicker." This is something that is alleged so far and could come out eventually. She thought maybe the Alma refinery was an interesting reason for shutting down a business. Mr. Smith made a motion, seconded by Ms. Keene to accept the comments from Ms. Charlene Decker. On a voice vote, the motion carried. D. PENDING ITEMS (future action required) 1. Zoning and Ordinance Committee a. _ _ urner St.,"H" Light Industrial District to"G-1" Business District(Tabled February 11 1998) b. Z-5-199 ,401-407 E. Grand River,"F"Commercial District to"G-1" Business District(Tabled June 10, 1998) C. Z-8-2000' 3901 S. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd.,"F"Commercial to"H" Light Industrial District(Tabled June 14, 2000) d. Z-15-2000, 301 W. Lenawee Street, Professional Office to"G-1"Business District(Tabled January 17,2001) PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 23, 2002, Page 14 e. P-1-2001,Tentative Preliminary Plat,Wexford Woods (Tabled June 13, May 9, 2001) f. PRD-2-2001,"Crystal Woods", Planned Residential Neighborhood (Tabled August 15,2001 g. SLU-6-2001,51)-519 E. Grand River Ave., Church in"F-V Commercial District Tabled November 14,2001) h. LU-8-2001,3000 W. Miller Road,Additional Parking for an Existing Church (Tabled November 14,2001) i. SLU-1-2002, 1400 Block,W.Jolly Road, Special Land Use Permit- New Church J. Ordinance Amendments, Front Yard Setbacks and Accessory Structures 2. Urban Development Committee a. Act-9-2000,201 E. Grand River Avenue, Proj. Sign Over ROW (Tabled June 27, 2000) b. Act-2-2002, Lansing Housing Commission Property, 310 Seymour,Acquisition for public purposes(Tabled February 26,2002) 3. Committee of the Whole 4. Planning Board a. Act-27-2001,313 E. Grand River Ave. (Comfort Station), Market for Sale(Tabled April 2,2002) 8. NEW BUSINESS - None. 9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON - None. 10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS Ms. Keene commented upon the pending closure of two downtown businesses, Ma-Ah's and Parthenon, in that business vitality is improved through have downtown residents. Ms. Keene also stated the she was concerned about possible plans to remove housing from the Oliver Tower site to put in a parking lot and/or a new city hall, expressing that residential reuse of the site should be considered further. Mr. Smith mentioned that the YMCA should work with Boji to combine health facility efforts. Ms. Keene stated that the loss of the Y downtown will be to service it provided for families and children living in the downtown area. Ms. Foster mentioned that when discussing the Comfort Station again, it would be helpful if the Parks Dept. could provide information on how it handles liability with other types of facilities on City property (e.g. MSU Crew facility). Mr. Ruge requested an excused absence for the regular planning Board meeting scheduled for May 7, 2002 and to notify the members that he would also miss the May 15, 2002 Zoning & Ordinance Committee meeting. It was moved by Mr. Smith, supported by Ms. Keene, to excuse Mr. Ruge as requested. The motion carried. Mr. Ruge has an excused absence for the May 7, 2002 Planning Board meeting. PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 23, 2002, Page 15 11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS Chairman Frederick requested action on the possible illegal signs and pennants on the wholesale beauty supply building at Clemens and Kalamazoo. Also, signs are going up around the city on stakes in the right of way that appear illegal. For an example, see the northeast corner of Jolly and Aurelius. 12. ADJOURNMENT - Meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James A. Ruff, Secretary, Planning Board PB Minutes.042302.wpd Approved as written 5-21-02 Draft to Clerk April 26,2002 Approved May 21,2002 To Clerk May 23,2002 Minutes of the Regular Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD 7:00 p.m., Tenth Floor, Council Chambers Lansing City Hall Tuesday, April 16, 2002 1. OPENING SESSION The meeting was called to order at 7:06 p.m. by Chairman Frederick. A. Roll call. Present: Frederick, Foster, Keene, Patrick, Smith, Ruge. B. Staff Attending: Ruff, Rieske, Hodges. C. Excused absence: Ms. Cordill. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA It was moved by Mr. Smith, supported by Ms. Keene to approve the revised agenda. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (5-0). 3. COMMUNICATIONS A. Email from Alisande Henry stating Mayor Hollister would not be able to attend the Planning Board meeting. B. Letter from Gilbert and Rebecca Ledesma opposing the Wolverine Pipeline. C. Letter from Kathy "K.P." Pelleran opposing the Wolverine Pipeline. D. Email from Raymond Hill regarding a Wolverine Pipe Line spill in June of 2000. Mr. Frederick stated for the record that Mr. Ruge arrived at 7:10 p.m. after role was taken and that he will be present for the duration of the meeting. Ms. Patrick mentioned an informal communication from the Old Everett Neighborhood Organization that takes the position of opposition for the Wolverine Pipeline and that the organization could not send a representative because of meeting conflicts. 4. HEARINGS A. Act-7-2002, Gasoline Pipeline in 1-96 Right-of-Way, Wolverine Pipe Line Company PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 16, 2002, Page 2 Wolverine Pipe Line Co. is requesting to locate a gasoline pipe line in the 1-96 right of way in the City of Lansing. The purpose of the pipeline is for the transportation of gasoline products. Since such products are highly toxic and flammable, a break in the pipeline could result in the release of a large volume of toxic liquid. Although a significant leak may be relatively remote, such situations do occur. The potential consequences of a pipeline break could be of such magnitude that their placement in proximity to developed lands and other high consequence areas would be inconsistent with sound planning practices and the policies advanced in the City's comprehensive plans. Correspondingly, location considerations for such a request involve the nature and function of neighboring land uses, the potential consequences of a pipeline on these uses, and the available alternatives to this location. The neighboring land uses along the route are largely developed, consisting of residential developments of varying density, as well as commercial and office uses. Much of the land that remains undeveloped reflects areas of environmental significance and sensitive areas that are critical to the regions supply of drinking water. The proposed route goes through the 'Mason Esker', the longest underground glacial river bed in Michigan. This esker is the principle source drinking water for the region and contaminants run very quickly through such deposits. Drinking water concerns also include: the route cutting across established well head protection zones, being in proximity to the Board of Water and Light's Wise Road Conditioning Plant, including a 5 million gallon reservoir of drinking water which represents one third of the water supply capacity for the region; 10 of BWL production wells are within a quarter-mile of the pipeline route and another 13 within the well head protection area that could be impacted by the route. Continuation of the existing development pattern is supported by the City's Comprehensive Plans. The plans do not recognize or recommend the 1-96 r/w as a utility corridor. Much of the area surrounding the Lansing urbanized area remains undeveloped, offering ample opportunities for locating the pipeline through undeveloped areas. Two routes were identified by a real estate appraiser, Charles Green. Four alternates were considered acceptable by the Public Service Commission. Until all reasonable alternatives have been exhausted the public's safety and welfare can be protected to the City's satisfaction, the location proposed for the pipeline is considered to be incompatible with the existing land use pattern, the future pattern being advance in the Comprehensive Plans, and sound planning practices in general. PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 16, 2002, Page 3 With respect to character, the proposed route is in close proximity to a range of developments and other high consequence areas. It also is a route reflecting areas of high minority concentrations. The disproportionate placement of minorities at risk to a potential environmental hazard threat raises concerns of environment justice. Given the composition of the adjoining land uses and population, the request is considered to be inconsistent with the general character of the neighboring area. With respect to the 'extent' of the proposal, the size and design of the pipeline would appear consistent with its intended use and a facility of lessor size would not result in a disproportionate reduction in it's potential impacts. Based on the findings detailed in sections above, the proposal is considered inconsistent with the location and character of the surrounding area, the land use pattern being advanced in the comprehensive plans, and sound planning practices. It is, therefore, suggested that the Planning Board recommend that the request be denied. John Hodges gave a brief overview. Mr. Ruff gave a brief clarification regarding the area of the pipeline that the Board is reviewing and the information provided by Wolverine Pipeline. Leslie Cole, Vice President and General Manager Wolverine Pipe Line, Portage, Michigan. As Mr. Ruff described, they have made application with the Michigan Public Service Commission to own, operate and maintain a pipeline. A portion of that pipeline route that they have asked for a permit does cross through the City of Lansing. It is a very long pipeline. Some of the shortest distances that cross through any municipality is through the City of Lansing. They have asked that the route be along interstate 96 as it goes around the South and West sides of Lansing. In the MPSC Staff's testimony, as you will find evidence in the records. They say that there is no such thing as a perfect pipeline route, but that this particular route is as good as it gets. The reason that it is as good as it gets because it is a freeway corridor. It is a transportation corridor. A pipeline is a transportation facility. The corridor is also isolated and fenced. It has minimal easements in it and contractors that do work within the corridor must contact MDOT for permission to do work in that right of way. Because it is a isolated, fenced and controlled corridor and because contractors must have MDOT's permission, it reduces the likelihood of third party damage, which is the leading cost of pipeline failures. The route utilizes existing highway corridors for almost the entire length. This in turn minimizes impacts to residences and businesses. Environmental damage will be minimized because the areas PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 16, 2002, Page 4 along the 1-96 right of way have previously been disturbed in order to accommodate the highway itself. Using the highway right of way eliminates the need to take land away from other uses. The proposed pipeline will be constructed with state of the art technology. Industry experts as well as the Office of Pipeline Safety have determined that the pipeline will be constructed and operated in a safe manner. The presence of a pipeline will not negatively inhibit development, particularly because the pipeline will be located in a highway right of way where development will not be occurring. Also, Meridian Township and East Lansing are a perfect example of how a community can flourish even with the presence of a pipeline. Experts, including the City of Lansing's, Mr. Hansel, have concluded that in the unlikely event of a pipeline incident, the City's water supply would not be affected. He would appreciate the Board's consideration in recommending that the City of Lansing grant its consent to this project and he would like to answer any questions. Mr. Ruge asked why they withdrew their application to have the pipeline follow its original route? Mr. Cole said the original route of the pipeline, which is 65 years old, has suffered from what they would consider to be encroachments. That is basically development within a very close proximity to the pipeline. Because of the encroachments, which were schools, apartment buildings, residential property, business property, a post office, the Meridian Mall. Because of the encroachment of areas like this, the Michigan Public Service Commission could not recommend that old route as a good location for a new route. Looking at these encroachments and the difficulty that would exist in constructing the new pipeline within that highly congested route and looking at the fact that there is not a highly congested area along 1-96 as it goes south and west of Lansing. Wolverine Pipeline Company decided that it would be better to withdraw the portion of their application that was north of 1-96 all the way up to St. Johns Township and reapply for a permit utilizing the 1-96 corridor. Mr. Ruge said that there were more residences and businesses by the pipeline there than if it went through on 1-96. Mr. Cole said that there is an order of magnitude greater number of residential homes, apartment complexes and business development along that existing corridor than there will be along the 1-96 corridor. Mr. Ruge asked what it meant when he said in order of magnitude? Mr. Cole said what it means is, there were locations where the pipeline would have run down the middle of a residential street. There were three PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 16, 2002, Page 5 locations where the pipeline would run in between the buildings of apartment complexes. There were two schools where the pipeline would have crossed the school grounds and in one of those, the current pipeline crosses underneath the schools playground equipment. It runs around the perimeter drive of the Meridian Mall. It runs through the parking lot of the Meridian Post Office. They would actually need pictures of that current route to get a good understanding of what he is talking about. With regard to distances from residential property to the pipeline, the distances that they will find along the 1-96 proposed route are much greater than the majority of the distances that they would have found along the route as it went through Okemos, Meridian and East Lansing. Mr. Ruge asked if it was true that despite the fact that the pipeline was there they decided to build their businesses and houses next to it. Mr. Cole said that is true which is another good reason for using 1-96. Because business development, residential development, any type of development other than transportation infrastructure will not be allowed in that corridor. Ms. Keene asked who will benefit as a result of the placement of the pipeline through the City of Lansing? Mr. Cole said in this particular area the City of Lansing is the biggest beneficiary, but also the central Michigan area is another big beneficiary of this pipeline system. Towns like Mt. Pleasant, Bay City, Midland, Saginaw and all of the 29 counties that make up the central Michigan area will be beneficiaries of the pipeline. Ms. Keene said when you say the City of Lansing, you are including Meridian Township and all the local here? Mr. Cole said yes, the distribution terminal that currently services the greater Lansing area, which is several counties in radius around that distribution terminal is located off the Grand River Avenue to the north and west side of the City of Lansing, west of the City's airport. That is where this current pipeline will end and will connect to an existing pipeline that then carries product to a distribution terminal in Bay City. The two distribution terminals are what will serve central Michigan. So, they can say that Meridian Township is benefitted, East Lansing is benefitted, Okemos is benefitted, Delta Township is benefitted, but the City of Lansing has the largest number of residences in this area in one municipal unit so he would say that the City of Lansing is as big a beneficiary of anyone in the area of Lansing proper. PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 16, 2002, Page 6 Ms. Keene said he answered her question, but she wanted to clarify that while Lansing will benefit, it is also in her view carrying a burden for the complete mid Michigan area. Mr. Cole said he would not agree that it would be carrying the burden. When they look at the number of miles that the pipeline traverses through communities in this area, the fewest number of miles in any municipality with the exception of probably Watertown Township is Lansing itself. Ms. Keene asked if he is saying that Meridian Township and Okemos areas have more pipeline going through them than what will run through the City of Lansing? Mr. Cole said no, he is saying that the townships that border interstate 96 as it goes south and west of Lansing are the townships that will be crossed by the pipeline. They are the townships that are crossed by the Interstate highway and if they measure the distance that the pipeline or the highway traverses through those townships, they will find that the distance is longer than the distance that passes through Lansing. Ms. Keene said what about those townships east of Lansing, such as Meridan? Mr. Cole said there are townships west that also benefit and it is not passing through the townships west or east. It goes around the south and west edge of Lansing. It can benefit people in Charlotte, but it does not cross through Charlotte. Ms. Keene said her concern is that the citizens of Lansing appear to be feeling that the City of Lansing is being asked to assume the burden of having this pipeline, when all these other locations, such as Meridian Township are going to have only the benefit, while they carry the burden. That is a concern that she has. Mr. Cole said in his view she does not have to be concerned about that because it is not a burden. It crosses through the City of Lansing, while in the corridor of an Interstate highway so it does not impact anybody's private property or any property that the City of Lansing currently zones for other uses. Ms. Keene said what she is talking about the burden, she is thinking about things that the anxiety, for example, that the residents will suffer because they are more closely exposed to the possibility of something happening like what occurred down in Blackman Township. That is what she is talking about. The thing that Meridian Township will avoid. PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 16, 2002, Page 7 Mr. Cole said they all mentioned Mr. Hill who lives in Blackman Township. Also contained in that record is testimony from the Blackman Township Supervisor who testified for the MPSC that Wolverine Pipeline Company is a very good corporate citizen and it fully cooperates with all government agencies, all interested parties in its response to incidents. While they don't plan to have incidents, they stay ready to respond to incidents so that people who do live near the pipeline don't have to be burdened with worry of what might happen because they are fully capable of working any response activity to the point that no one living near the pipeline is in danger because of any incident that the pipeline could possibly have. If they would also remember the fact that this is a brand new pipeline and so the likelihood it having an incident is very remote when they compare it to a pipeline that was built in 1953 like the one through Blackman Township. Also understand the current regulatory structure in regard to pipelines they would know that regulations were just passed that requires pipeline companies to have an integrity management program. This program will severely lessen the likelihood of any incident with regard to a brand new constructed pipeline built in the year 2002. Ms. Keene asked why they withdrew the proposal in Meridian Township. How did that come about? Mr. Cole said in the original permit application they asked for a route from Jackson, Blackman Township, to Stockridge Township and from Stockridge Township to St. Johns Township. The route from Jackson to Stockbridge was a new route, one where they did not currently have a pipeline. The route from Stockbridge to St. Johns was following the existing pipeline. They had just recently purchased that pipeline. The easements associated with the ownership of the pipeline is one of the most valuable assets associated with owning the pipeline. Since they had just purchased it, they elected to attempt to use that newly acquired asset by laying a brand new pipeline next to the old pipeline to replace the old pipeline. The administrative law judge that was hearing that particular case recommended to the Michigan Public Service Commission that they deny the permit. Prior to the Michigan Public Service Commission actually hearing the case, they withdrew the portion that was a concern to the administrative law judge and that was the portion that existed between 1-96 and I-69. As a result of withdrawing that piece they were granted a permit for the piece from Blackman Township, the pipeline has been constructed, and they were granted the permit for the piece from Stockbridge to 1-96. That particular part of the line has not been constructed because they also agreed with the MPSC Staff that they would not construct it until they had a completed route to the Marathon Ashland Petroleum Terminal on the west side of Lansing. So, what they have today is a 20 mile new pipeline with some refurbished tanks at PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 16, 2002, Page 8 Stockbridge and a new pump station in Stockbridge that is continuing to pump gasoline down a 65 year old pipeline. Ms. Foster said continuing with that question, why where they going to reject that permit. Mr. Cole said because of the highly congested nature of Okemos, Meridian and East Lansing. The route through that area is much more highly congested than anything along 1-96. Plus going through that highly congested area they would have done so by easement, which means that they would not have the protection afforded by being in a corridor like 1-96 where excavation work is limited. Mr. Ruge asked if they were to refurbish the old 65 year old pipeline, the same size pipe as it is, could they continue to use their current easement? Mr. Cole said they could continue to use their current pipeline as it is. It's current operating pressure is 800 psi and they can not refurbish it to the point where they can raise the operating pressure to a level necessary to meet the demands of central Michigan because the permit that enabled that pipeline to be built does not allow it to be modified in that manner. Mr. Ruge said they can pump the same amount of gas through that line, but they could not pump any more. Mr. Cole said approximately half of what they are trying to replace. Mr. Ruge said should they approve their request, would they be willing to hire a private consultant along with the City to monitor the work on the pipeline in general? Mr. Cole said Wolverine Pipeline inspects the construction of a pipeline facility. The Office of Pipeline Safety also inspects the construction of a pipeline such as this. The Office of Pipeline Safety might not be there daily. If the City of Lansing feels that it would be necessary in order to grant consent for the project that it have a full time inspector to watch the construction activities that occurred within the City of Lansing, Wolverine Pipeline would be happy to accommodate that and would be happy to work with the City of Lansing so that they could find reputable persons to do that work that were not in anyway affiliated with Wolverine Pipeline. Mr. Ruge said he thinks that one of the big concerns is not just the construction but ongoing inspections to ensure that there is not some kind of a leak, especially that goes on undetected. PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 16, 2002, Page 9 Mr. Cole said that they have agreed to put in 6 or 7 valves along this corridor as it comes into 1-96 and crosses around the city. The purpose of those 6 valves is to drastically reduce any amount of gasoline that could leak from the pipeline in the event there was an incident with the pipeline. Those 6 valves will be remotely operated that will be capable of being manually operated on site and in addition to the valves they are planning to install pressure and temperature sensors at each location so that every time the pipeline is shut down, they can close those valves using the pressure and temperature sensors to run a pressure test during that down time. If they combine that with cathodic protection and that they run an internal inspection tool every 5 years, it would be almost impossible for a leak to develop that they could not detect prior to the leak losing enough gasoline to impact any of the city's water wells. Mr. Ruge said he is saying it is not necessary for some outside person to... Mr. Cole said he is just describing what they would do. If they look at what is absolutely necessary, what he described as overkill, but they are doing this to make people understand that they plan to operate a safe pipeline and they don't have to be afraid of it. If the City of Lansing would like to review such inspections on a periodic basis they would be happy to allow to do so. Mr. Smith said Mr. Cole earlier referenced a Mr. Hensel from the Board of Water and Light. To be clear is he referring to the Mr. Hensel who is the geologist from Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Mr. Cole said he referred to him as an expert witness for the City of Lansing, which is what he was. Mr. Smith said the reason he asks is because first off on the Executive Summary that was presented to the MPSC on page 50 is a statement that says potential long term impacts from larger petroleum spills may occur due to valve or pipeline failures during pipe operations. So, this is something that they anticipate happening? Mr. Cole said no they do not anticipate it. Mr. Smith said it does say in the report that is even foreseeable. Remote though it might be it does use the word foreseeable. Mr. Hensel, there is a statement they have from the Board of Water and Light, has confirmed that the area through which the pipeline is proposed. . . It says, "in addition the proposed pipeline route passes through their southwest wellfield, the Stifel Well Field Wellhead Protection Area that has no PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 16, 2002, Page 10 protective layer at all." So, were there to be a leak, whether it was catastrophic leak or minor there is very little there to prevent it from going into the aquifer and possibly contaminating the water supply of which much of the water for Lansing does then come from underground water. From the Saginaw Aquifer. So what he is wondering now is even though he has assured them that it would be safe, there are some pretty frightening statistics here. For example it says for a non-catastrophic failure such as an undetected leak is an even greater concern than a sudden catastrophic line failure. Any automated control system has limited sensitivity to leaks. With a flow volume of 3.1 million gallons, nearly .01 of 1% of the daily flow would allow 310 gallons of gasoline a day to enter the ground. If the leak remained undetected for just a month almost 10,000 gallons would be lost. The first indication of the leak would likely be when contaminants would be measured in the Board of Water and Light drinking water wells. So, how do they allay their fear of that? Mr. Cole said first of that the Stifel Well Field is over a mile away and he is sure that they could consult with any geologist and find out that it takes literally decades for gasoline to travel through the ground for a mile. What he just described about the valves and the temperature and pressure transmitters is so that they have the opportunity to make sure that there is no undetectable leaks. Also, if they would recall the area in which they are proposing to build this pipeline, they would remember that in many, many months of the year, the ground is wet and they simply can not leak 300 gallons of gasoline into the ground that is wet and not have that gasoline surface. So, the public is one safeguard against the city's waterwells because if it does surface it will be reported. If it is reported they will eliminate the leak and clean up the ground. They will remediate the location and it will not pose a threat to the city's waterwells. The current 65 year old pipeline that runs between I-96 and I-69 has existed there for 65 years and although they did not own it for that period of time and reviewing the records that they have from the prior owners, they do not find that it has leaked within that corridor and that corridor is also a corridor that could put gasoline in the same aquifer that they referred to. So, simply forcing them to use the old pipeline is not a way to resolve the exposure of the aquifer to gasoline contamination if they were the type of company that would allow that to happen. Mr. Smith asked how they do determine an underground leak? Mr. Cole said they conduct an over and short analysis of the line while it is running measuring what goes in one end versus what comes out of the other end. This is computerized and very accurate. Then when they close a pipeline they leave pressure on a pipeline. In this case there would be 375 to 500 pounds of pressure left on the pipeline. If in the normal course of business they shut down a pipeline, which occurs routinely, while it is PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 16, 2002, Page 11 shut down with that pressure on it, if they close those 6 or 7 valves they have segmented the pipeline into very small increments and they can measure the pressure drop and if there is one, they investigate there was a pressure drop. Is it due to a valve leaking into the tank at Lansing terminal or is it due to the gasoline leaking from the pipeline somewhere. His point is this, if they conduct 24 hour remote surveillance of the operation of the pipeline and then they in effect pressure test it every time they shut down, there will not be any leaks occurring on the pipeline that will be of a magnitude that could readily place gasoline into the City of Lansing's drinking water. Also, he is not sure that they need to be as concerned about that possibility as they seem to be because currently there has been over 112 locations within the City of Lansing where underground storage tanks have leaked and none of those has resulted in the contamination of the city's water aquifer. Mr. Smith said from the time that there was a pressure variance and they have a potential leak, what kind of a time frame would they be talking about and the secondary question to that, are there other things that could give a false reading? In other words, would there be other reasons that there would be pressure fluctuation that might not be a leak, that may lead them to assume that they did not have a leak but it is some other problem so there is some hesitance in addressing the leak? Mr. Cole said they are required by Office of Pipeline Safety regulation to inspect the valves and any temperature and pressure transmitters on a 6 month basis and repair any problems associated with those inspections. For example, a pressure transmitter could give a false indication, however, it is not likely to show a pressure drop if one was not occurring. It could show an inaccurate pressure, but if that pressure remains static then there is no seepage of product from the pipeline. They will respond immediately to anything that they believe indicates to them that there is any kind of leakage from the pipe. They are not in the business of spilling gasoline, they don't get paid for spilling gasoline. Mr. Smith said that he just mentioned a 6 month interval in the inspection of the valves. Is he to understand that it is the kind that they would detect a pressure difference or is the pressure constantly monitored? Mr. Cole said the pressure and the status of the valve is constantly monitored. It is a physical on-site inspection that is required every 6 months. Ms. Foster said he said that when they are going to close the valves they are going to leave a remaining pressure of 500-800 pounds of pressure and they would test it with that to see if there was a pressure drop. Would they ever test it at full pressure with the valves closed? PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 16, 2002, Page 12 Mr. Cole said no, not with product they would not, no. Ms. Foster said she just wondered if something that leaks at that high pressure they would not be doing it at a stopped point. Mr. Cole said if they do that when the pipe is shut down, there will be times when it will be shut down with diesel fuel in the line. There will be times when it will be shut down with gasoline in the line. Diesel fuel leaks from the pipeline easier than gasoline leaks from the pipe line if they are talking about a seepage occurrence. Because of that fact, they would have multiple products during this test it is not likely that any type of small leak would ever be undetected for a significant period of time. Ms. Foster said it still would not be tested at that high pressure. Mr. Cole said the reason they do not do it at full pressure is this. The pressure at which the pipeline will be rated to operate is 1440 psi. That pressure exists at the pump in Stockbridge and the closer they get to the Lansing distribution terminal the lower the pressure is. So, by the time it reaches Lansing the pressure is likely to be 800-900 pounds. So in a normal routine shutdown, they stop the pump in Stockbridge and close the valve. As the pressure begins to leave the pipeline at a point in which they want to catch the remaining pressure then they close the valve at the Lansing terminal. They never leave it shut down with the full 1440 pounds of pressure because that would require them to pump against a closed valve in Lansing and that is not a good practice. Ms. Foster said if they got turned down on this, what are their viable options? Mr. Cole said he does not know what the future would hold if they were not successful in getting a permit to construct this particular line. He knows that one option is to use the existing one. That is not a very good option. He can not tell the Board what the Board of Directors at Wolverine Pipeline would choose to do in the future. All he can say is that they would recommend to them that they not spend millions in searching for the illusive perfect pipeline ramp, because it does not exist. In this current route that they are proposing it is as good a route as they would find anywhere in this area to serve this area. Mr. Ruge said in testimony before the MPSC, Mr. Charles Green, Real Estate Appraiser, he testified that there were two possible alternative routes that would avoid any heavily populated areas. Have they checked into these possible routes? PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 16, 2002, Page 13 Mr. Cole said during the first case, there were several alternative routes identified and they have looked at those alternative routes. The MPSC have looked at those alternative routes. Some of those alternative routes are very close to or similar to the routes that Mr. Green identified and it is Wolverine's opinion and it is the opinion of MPSC staff engineer that this route is superior compared to any of the alternatives that Wolverine or the MPSC studied. Mr. Green is an appraiser, so he is very good at finding out who owns property and where a pipeline route could be, but he falls short of being an expert of actually analyzing whether or not a route he picks is a real viable alternative to the one they have suggested. Mr. Frederick said they brought up earlier Mr. Hills e-mail that they received about the spill down near Jackson. The reason he asks this is he is looking at this pipeline now as something that is going to go in brand new, but it is going to be 65 years old after he is gone and presumably if pipelines get older they become more likely to have some kind of a problem be it maintenance or a leak or whatever. He would like to know what his company has learned from the experience with the Jackson spill and what would they do differently today if they had that same accident? Mr. Cole said with regard to the way they responded, they probably would not do very much differently than what they did. They responded effectively as well as Blackman Township and Jackson County Sheriff's Department and USEPA, the Michigan State Police. Anyone who has some responsibility for response to an incident like that responded timely and effectively and they were the first to realize the incident and they shut the pipeline down immediately and they responded immediately. In regard to their response they would not do anything differently. If they look at the way they compensated people who were asked to evacuate from their homes, they went above and beyond a legal requirement of a company such as theirs to reimburse them for any possible loss that they could have suffered as a result of that evacuation. The only thing that concerns him about that is that it does not satisfy some people. So, he does not know that there is anything that they would do differently, when they look at the fact that there are a very small amount of law suits compared to the fact that 1300 people were evacuated, he guesses that you would have to say that they did the right thing. His problem is that they don't seem to be getting credit for doing the right thing. But, if they watch the news, most businesses don't get credit for doing the right thing. With regard to the beginning of the question. Mr. Frederick is right, this pipeline will be 65 years old and when it is 65 years old it will be in far better condition than a current 65 year old pipeline. That is because of the fact that industry has learned a lot and regulators have learned a lot and so now they know more about how to build a pipeline and maintain a pipeline and the regulatory body understands more about what to require PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 16, 2002, Page 14 of them so they properly maintain the pipeline. So, comparing this pipeline 65 years from now to the one that currently exists to the east of them that is 65 years old today is an apples and oranges comparison. They are not comparable. Mr. Frederick said earlier he mentioned the valves that they use to close to perform the tests. From the material that he has read that was presented during the MPSC hearing, he understands that those valves are above the 48 inches of depth of the ground that the pipeline is buried. What he would like to know then, is since those valves are above ground they seem to be particularly vulnerable to terrorists attack. A year ago that would not have been as much a concern as it is now, so he would like to know what their company will do to protect those valves and potentially there could be a bomb big enough to blow up the pipeline 48 inches in the ground, although that is fairly deep. At any rate he would like to know what terrorist protection they have put into the project? Mr. Cole said they have worked with MDOT to pick locations for those valves that are above ground so that they minimize any potential for traffic running off 1-96 to be able to come in contact with the valves and they will also fence the valves and lock the fence so that it is relatively inaccessible. They are also on a heavily traveled highway so they are constantly in the vision of somebody, so they don't anticipate that a terrorist would find them to be a very attractive target and when they consider that terrorists are doing these things to make a spectacular point or to cause severe disruptions, they don't necessarily accomplish either one of those by blowing up an in ground pipeline. They would more likely focus on a storage area for petroleum products like Lansing terminal or like the refinery where it is produced. With regard to what happens if they actually did blow up the pipeline. The pipeline can be repaired and back in service within hours if not days and once it is repaired and back in service they go about the task of cleaning up anything that is spilled from the pipeline. While they can't guarantee them that a terrorist will never target a pipeline, they also can't tell them that they consider it to be a very high risk in compared to all the other targets that they would find around a city like Lansing that a terrorist might like to go after. Mr. Frederick asked if anyone, including his company ever considered moving the terminal that the pipeline would terminate from North Lansing around to somewhere in the south so they would not have to build this pipeline or use the existing one at all? Mr. Cole said Wolverine Pipeline Company does not own the distribution terminal. It is owned by one of their shippers. The distribution terminal is a very expensive facility to construct and it also needs to be permitted, so PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 16, 2002, Page 15 the short answer to the question is no that has not been considered and he would doubt very seriously if Marathon National Petroleum Company would consider it. Mr. Ruff said Mr. Cole mentioned after Mr. Frederick's question that their response in Blackman Township was timely and effective and that the pipeline was shut down immediately. How many gallons of fuel was spilled and what size pipeline was that? Mr. Cole said that pipeline was a 16" in diameter pipeline, which it is larger than the pipeline proposed here. The remotely controlled valves on that pipeline were approximately 40 miles apart. In relationship to this route within the City of Lansing they are talking 5 miles apart. Once they can close the valves that greatly diminishes the amount of product that can flow from the pump, however it will still leak out of the pipe by gravity until other manually operated valve is closed. The closest manually operated valve was 20 miles away. They did all the valve closings and reduced the amount of product that was leaking from the pipeline. . .They shut the pipeline down within minutes and they had all the manual valves closed within an hour of the actual spill. The amount that they reported to the National Response Center, which was an estimate at the time because they had no way to measure it, was 71,400 gallons. The amount that actually was lost from their pipeline by their meter measurement was like 55,000 gallons. The majority of the gasoline was picked up within the first 24 hours and more than 80% of it was eventually picked up and the difference between what was picked up and what wasn't was a significant of it evaporated because the weather was identical to what it is today. The fact that the weather was identical today is why they evacuated to so many people. They hauled off 400 dump truck loads of dirt to a landfill just so that they could make sure that the gasoline did not remain in the environment within Blackman Township. They are continuing to work with the MDEQ to make sure that the drain that the gasoline followed on its way to the Grand River is eventually 100% cleaned up to the satisfaction of the MDEQ, not to the satisfaction of Wolverine Pipe Line. Ms. Keene asked if he could tell her exactly the damages that they paid out to the nature of the injury to the residents. How did the spill impact their lives? Mr. Cole said out of the 580 residences that were asked to evacuate they all had to find alternative housing anywhere from one day to one night to seven nights. So, they paid for that cost. They paid for the cost of their meals while they were evacuated from their homes. They paid for the cost of boarding their pets if that was needed. All of those who were evacuated had their gas and their power turned off at their home during PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 16, 2002, Page 16 the evacuation period. Some of those residences are in an area where basement sump pumps are required to operate continually or the basement floods, so in some houses they had to repair flood damage because their sump pump was off when they evacuated. Any legitimate claim that they brought forward was paid. They used a check writing system with a check written on a local bank so that they had immediate access to the money. Altogether in that type of claim situation they spent in excess of 1.5 million dollars. Mr. Ruge said he wanted to clarify. To these 580 residences they paid 1.5 million dollars? Mr. Cole said not to each one. In aggregate for lodging, transportation, food, and for incidental damages to there home in the evacuation period. Ms. Keene said she assumes that the pipeline was repaired and it is still in existence where it was at the time. Mr. Cole said it was repaired in that 7 day period and put back into service. It is still in service today in the same location. Lisa Dedden, Ingham County Commissioner representing District 10, stated her district is the south Lansing area. She is strongly opposed to the Wolverine Pipe Line proposal to construct a pipeline across south Lansing. Her opposition is for herself and on behalf of her constituents who live in homes, apartments and manufactured housing along the proposed route along I-96. Enclosed in the documents are a copy of resolution 01-156, entitled Resolution in Opposition to Proposed Wolverine Pipe Line routes against densely populated residential areas in Ingham County, which was adopted by the Ingham County Board of Commissioners on May 22, 2001 and which specifically addresses and expresses opposition to Wolverine's proposal to construct this route south Lansing along the 1-96 right of way. Also in the packet is another document that she has also filed with the Michigan Public Service Commission which is a photo addendum to her brief and opposition to this route. As you look at the packet, you can see visual evidence of people who live in this area and that there are a number of people there and that there are a number of businesses in contradiction to some of the comments that the applicant has made on that issue. In particular, she is here tonight to say Wolverine's request to construct this pipeline in Lansing should be denied because it would place this pipeline too close to far too many high consequence areas including densely populated neighborhoods consisting of homes, apartments, and manufactured housing communities, public wells upon which a large segment of mid- Michigan's population is dependent for the water supply, schools, a congested and growing business district and at least one sizeable daycare PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 16, 2002, Page 17 center. Routing a petroleum products pipeline through this level of residential and commercial development unacceptably compromises the safety and interest of thousands of Lansing residents. Official United States Census Data shows that 9,113 persons live in 4,295 housing units in the Census blocks immediately adjacently to 1-96 where this proposal runs through the City of Lansing alone. In conclusion, she stated that as witnesses have attested throughout both the case currently before the PSC and the Meridian Township case before the PSC, the risks associated with the presence of a petroleum products pipeline no matter how safely the company may attempt to construct and operate that line from an engineering standpoint are necessarily increased when the pipeline is located in an area with high density of residential and commercial development and this added risk is contrary to the public interest and safety of Lansing residents. She respectfully urged the Board to deny the proposal before them. John Pollard, resident of 1718 Blair street, stated he is vehemently opposed to the Wolverine Pipe Line. It certainly is going to threaten over 9,100 people, 4,200 housing units, 23 of 110 wells, that is about 22 percent of the drinking water of Lansing, 73 abandoned wells and the water supply for over 200,000 mid-Michigan residents. Absolutely never should you ever take a chance on jeopardizing water supply. When we need gasoline a hundred years from now, a thousand years from now who knows. It could be solar, nuclear or anything. Where human beings need air and water ten thousand years from now you betcha just like we have for ten thousand years that preceded us. The Office of Pipeline Safety may come here to watch the initial construction. They are not going to stand out there and watch this construction or supervise them the whole period. They typically show up at the beginning, watch them dig, and wander off into the sunset. According to figures released by the U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of Pipeline Safety, in 1998 the latest year for which the data was available, Michigan petroleum and natural gas lines had to repair 9,300 leaking underground gas lines and that figure is double what it was in 1991. Maybe they are getting better with their technology but they are finding more and more problems. He had data from the Office of Pipeline Safety. One of things that they are always going to try and tell you is that the leading cause of accidents and problems of pipelines are third party damage. People coming and digging. If you were to take all the problems that cause leakages whether it is by volume or cause of accident, for example, if corrosion of a pipeline, failed pipeline, failed well, incorrect operation of a pipeline and malfunctioning equipment, that is 42.4 percent of all the spillage product. It is also 46 percent of all the accidents whereas this third party stuff they are talking about is only 24 percent. What has happened is dis- aggregated all the data related to a pipeline but when you re-aggregate the data, the pipeline is the biggest cause of problems with a pipeline not PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 16, 2002, Page 18 the outside source. Finally, he stated that he is opposed to the pipeline because this is nothing short of environmental discrimination or racism. The pipeline is coming through here. He has the 2000 Census data for the track level: the tracks that run along East Lansing and Meridian, the six tracks that run along Lansing. We have 12 percent to a 55 percent of a minority population compared to Meridian of 7.6 or 17 percent. The median or average minority population totals in Lansing are 30.8 percent or 30.4 percent respectively. That is about 190.6 times greater than it is in Meridian and 2 2/3 times greater than it is in Meridian, if I look at the average and the median. We have more children and more poor people living along the pipeline. The average household income in Lansing is $49,784 compared to $83,000. There are some tracks in Lansing that are 12%, 15%, 25%, 36%, 38.3% and 55.5% minority. To do this is to violate civil rights, is to violate the 14`h Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and he's asking the Board to turn Wolverine down, send them packing and find an alternate route. This does not come through a densely populated area which is an oxymoron. There is no such thing as a safe pipeline where there are people. Send the pipeline out in the wilderness somewhere and if it blows up, we'll save the wilderness and no one will die. Brian Smith, resident of 1007 Woodbine, Chairman of Citizens for a Better Lansing, stated there is not much more that he could add. He feels that constructing the pipeline is contrary to public interest and safety by putting the pipeline through the City of Lansing. This case should be about public interest and safety not big business and who has the deepest pockets. It is clear that Wolverine calculated their risks based on the ability of the impacted families and businesses to fight them and not on the risk of population of minorities, low income families and children who would be effected the most if the pipeline fails. Basically, deny the pipeline. Clyde Dugan, Special Projects Director and Water Utilities Director for the Lansing Board of Water and Light, stated that he submitted testimony on behalf of Board of Water and Light in opposition to the Wolverine Pipe Line in the MPSE hearings. He wanted to go over briefly the elements of what he submitted and what the opposition was. The proposed pipeline runs through 9 '/2 miles of public water supply well head protection areas. The well head protection areas were determined by the United States Geological Survey using computer models of the Aquifer system to delineated well head protection areas were then approved by Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. Well head protection areas are those areas that contribute water to public water supply wells within a 10 year time frame. Parenthetically, that also includes any constituents of any product that are soluble in water when water travels at that speed. In other words, if a contaminate is introduced into the ground or into the Aquifer in these areas, it will reach a public water supply well PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 16, 2002, Page 19 within ten years. Ten public drinking water wells that are within a one quarter mile buffer zone would be impacted directly by a leakage of gasoline contaminants from the pipeline and an additional 13 wells are within the adjacent well head protection areas. Of these 23 wells, 21 are Board of Water and Light wells. The 21 BWL wells within the impacted well head protection area represent 22% of our total well field capacity and they are very productive wells requiring minimal conditioning, so they represent 25% of our base load capacity. In addition to existing wells, the proposed pipeline route goes through areas where new wells are planned and that will be a well head protection area in the future. The water supply wells within the well head protection area would be significantly impacted by either a catastrophic failure, which is a sudden and large release, and that type of failure can be detected by the pipeline control system, or a non-catastrophic failure, which is an undetected leak. One of the experts for the Wolverine Pipe Line Company represented that up to 16 gallons a minute could be lost without the automatic protective system catching it. Contamination that enters the ground will, unless completely removed, likely enter the drinking water aquifer. The layer of rock, predominately shale, that separates ground water from the glacial aquifer or the overlying aquifer is discontinuous and much of this portion of the well head protection area and that was also reflected in the environmental assessment done by Wolverine's consultant. In addition, the proposed pipeline route passes through our southwest well field, the Steifel well field well head protection area, which has no protective layer at all and by definition this well head protection area represents 10 year time and travel, not decades as represented by Mr. Cole. All of these observations have been confirmed by the BWL Hydro Geologists consultant. In the case of a catastrophic failure, if the automatic system is engaged, a quantity of 3.1 million gallons per day at 14.40 psi ensures a considerable amount of liquid petroleum will be forced directly into the ground and we have indicated in the file testimony what the volume of that would be. A non-catastrophic failure, such as an undetected leak, is even of greater concern than the sudden catastrophic type. Any automated control system has limited sensitivity to detect leaks with a flow volume of 3.1 million gallons per day, just 1/100 of 1% represents 310 gallons per day of gasoline into the ground system. The first indication of leak would likely be when the contaminates were first measured in the BWL drinking water wells. Ron Ashley, resident of 4521 Old Lansing Road, stated he has been a life long resident of Lansing. He finds it very odd that we have heard so little from the local media, State Journal or any of the local news channels. Little, if best, has been said and he cannot understand how few people are here tonight to speak on behalf of trying to stop the pipeline. As a realtor for 20 years, developers always try to find the path of least resistence to put through what they want over the desires or the objections of other people who are already there on the property that they PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 16, 2002, Page 20 are trying to cross. He feels that Wolverine is going across the south side of Lansing because there is so much rental property and less opposition from home owners that Wolverine thinks they can get away with this and get it across without anybody saying too much about it. He wanted to know that if Wolverine goes along 1-96, are they paying the state some kind of fee to run alongside the expressway instead of buying land and running the pipeline through the countryside away from the city. Is this why the public has not heard anything about the pipeline or is there something he is missing on the matter. As the pipeline crosses 1-96, when it reaches an overpass of one of the under streets of south Lansing, where is it routed then? Is it buried in the ground of one of the lower streets or how is it handled at this point? (i.e. 1-96 crosses Cedar Street, South Washington Avenue, Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd., etc.) Mr. Ruff stated that it is his understanding of what is called directional drilling, where Wolverine would actually drill underneath the street intersection, even deeper to get underneath Cedar Street and the same would be for rivers that would be crossed. Wolverine would drill underneath the river and then back up the other side, even a 12 inch steel pipe has a bend to it over a certain length. Mr. Ashley stated that he finds it very odd that some corporation can come into the City and their wishes and their desires are more important than the people who live in the City and pay taxes in the City and who have lived here their whole lives. He used to live in Dimondale and the same thing happened to a tract of land behind the subdivision in which he lived. The land was as dormant as a farmer's field for years. The sewer line was put in from Dimondale out to Grand Pointe marina. The company that laid the pipeline found out that the land was zoned multiple dwelling and they went to the township and threatened them because they wanted to put in a trailer park. The representative of the company stood there the first night at the township meeting and said the company has a quarter of a million dollars to sue anybody who will fight us. He stated that was so bazaar and so obnoxious that people who would build homes and live in that subdivision for 30 years, older people who are in their retirement years, had this on their backs and had this thrown in their face as being life long residents of that township. He cannot believe that they thought they could just blow right in and stomp all over these people's life long living out there and enjoying their property and paying their taxes and thought their desires were more important than the people who lived out there. He stated that he would be ashamed of the Board if they allowed Wolverine to pull this stunt in the City of Lansing. Dan Judd, resident of 1707 W. Ottawa, stated that he is the owner of ARQ, Inc., the company who is proposing to purchase the building at 934 Clark Street in reference to NCU-1-2002, and was directed to speak during the Comments from the Audience. PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 16, 2002, Page 21 Seeing no one else wishing to speak on this matter, Mr. Frederick referred Act-7-2002 to the Planning Board, Committee of the Whole, to meet on Tuesday, April 23, 2002 at Council Chambers, 10" Floor City Hall, 124 W. Michigan Avenue. 5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE Dan Judd, resident of 1707 W. Ottawa, stated that the proposal looks like it recommended that a substitution go through with a couple of caveats that include the driveway, whether it be the driveway and a parking lot or just the driveway, the hard surface being with some type of porous pavement and that there should be some sort of landscape, screening and buffering zones. He wasn't sure if that meant a fence or if it meant that the company had to build a berm. He stated that the company has not yet purchased the property and how this goes will depend on how the company change whatever offer that has been made to the property owner. Mr. Ruff stated that the porous pavement is with the idea it would not be hard surfaced in such a way with asphalt or concrete the parking area and driveway so that water would not be able to percolate into the ground. It could be gravel or some other surface that would allow water to penetrate into the ground and that may take from a site plan review stand point whether a certain gravel is approved that it be properly edged so that it doesn't spill over any place or if another material is used like brick, cobbles, or concrete pavers, that would be an option as well. Then the landscape, screening and buffering could include fencing, fencing and landscaping or landscaping. Mr. Ruff wasn't sure if there was fencing on the site presently but stated it would be to help soften the parking lot areas primarily from the adjoining residential properties. That is the purpose of it and that it could take on many different forms that could be designed to meet not only the company's financial needs but also meet the code requirements for buffering. Mr. Judd stated that he could get some type of reasonable quotes and talk with the Planning Department. His biggest concern was that the only quick quotes the company could get on anything that wasn't basically gravel was going for $10.00 a square foot, which would add conservatively $40,000-$50,000 to this project unless the owner cut the price of the building by over half the amount. The building is going to be vacant for a very, very long time. If gravel is a reasonable option, then that is what the company would like to do. Mr. Ruff stated that if this request is approved with these conditions, it doesn't mean the company still has to purchase the building. Seeing no one else wishing to address the Board, Mr. Frederick closed the public comment period. 6. RECESS was taken by the Board. PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 16, 2002, Page 22 7. BUSINESS SESSION A. Ms. Keene moved; seconded by Ms. Foster to approve the minutes of April 2, 2002 without corrections. On a voice vote, motion carried (6-0), the minutes of April 2, 2002 were APPROVED. B. Committee Reports 1. ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE, Mr. Ruge, Chair a. Z-5-2002, 1500 E. Cavanaugh Road, "I" Heavy Industrial District to "G-2" Wholesale District and "H" Light Industrial District This is a request by Kevin VanErman to rezone a 13.968 acre parcel located at 1500 E. Cavanaugh Road, west of Aurelius Rd., immediately east of the Penn. Central Railroad right-of-way and more particularly described as: W '/z OF W '/z OF SE 1/4 LYING E OF MC RR R/W, EXC COM SEC CEN, TH S 185.5 FT TO MC RR R/W, SE'LY ALONG MC RR R/W 268 FT TO OPEN DRAIN, N 4DEG 50MIN E ALONG SAID DRAIN TO E&W 1/4 LINE, W 119 FT TO BEG; SEC 34 T4N R2W from "I" Heavy Industrial District to "G-2" Wholesale District and "H" Light Industrial District. The applicant proposes to rezone the north 3.51 acres to "G-2" Wholesale District and the remaining 10.45 acres to "H" Light Industrial District. The purpose of the request is to allow for the creation of small industrial park. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows: Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Ms. Keene to recommend approval of Z-5-2002, 1500 E. Cavanaugh Road, "I" Heavy Industrial District to "G-2" Wholesale District and "H" Light Industrial District. Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Foster. . . Ave Keene . .Ave Patrick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Smith. . .Aye Ruge . .Ave On a Roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 16, 2002, Page 23 b. Z-6-2002, Willoughby Road, A" Residential District to "DM-2" Residential District (Amended to "B" Residential District) This is a request by John E. Sabty to rezone a vacant 62 acre parcel from "A" Residential District (single family) to "DM-2" Residential District (multiple family). The property is located north of Willoughby Rd. and south of 1-96 in the southeast 1/4 of Section 9, T3N-R2W, City of Lansing and more particularly described as: The East % of the Southeast 114 of the Southwest 114 and the Southwest 114 of the Southeast 114 lying South of the southerly right of way line of 1-96 Section 9 T3N-R2W, City of Lansing, Ingham County, MI., except the West 100.0 feet. The purpose of the request is to allow for the creation of an 850 unit multi-family development. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows: Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Ms. Foster to recommend approval of Z-6-2002, Willoughby Road, "A" Residential District to "B" Residential District with the assumption that a PRD will be submitted and there will be a 25% bonus density by utilizing the energy conservation techniques. For the record, the Board received an agreement from Mr. Sabty to amend his application for rezoning to "B" Residential District. Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Foster. . . Ave Keene . .Ave Patrick . . Ave Smith. . .Aye Ruge . .Ave On a Roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. C. NCU-1-2002, 934 Clark Street, Request for Substitution and Class A Status for a Nonconformity This is a request by ARQ Inc. for a substitution of a nonconforming use and Class A status for the property PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 16, 2002, Page 24 located at 934 Clark Street. The applicant proposes to make approximately $50,000 in improvements to the subject building in order to change its use from a printing business to an office that provides internet services. The subject property is currently zoned "B" Residential and is nonconforming for parking and use. This is not a matter of a rezoning. Mr. Ruge inquired about nonconforming for parking. He stated that he went to the site and it seemed there was plenty of space for parking. There was an empty lot next door which Mr. Judd indicated was part of the deal and that it looked like at one time it had a house on the property. Mr. Ruff stated that it was probably nonconforming for improvement and that parking number is contingent upon the use. Mr. Ruff gave the example of a use that required only five spaces, it might not be nonconforming for number. When you have a gravel surface or have something that is not lined, it is difficult to say. You can say that you can get so many spaces but practically when people park on gravel they don't park the same as if you would give it hard surfacing and lines. The parking number is probably not the coefficient that is nonconforming. It is probably due to the surfacing or its improvement. Mr. Ruge inquired about the City's standards for lighting in a parking lot. Mr. Ruff stated that there is no requirement for lighting but if you do, the lighting is supposed to remain on site. It is not supposed to be directed or spill over to the adjacent properties. Mr. Ruff also stated that most insurance companies demand that you have lighting. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows: Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Ms. Foster to recommend approval of NCU-1-2002, 934 Clark Street, Request for Substitution and Class A Status for a Nonconformity with the following conditions: 1. The driveway be surfaced with porous pavement. 2. Landscape, screening and buffering be provided along the periphery of the property as required by the Zoning Ordinance. PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 16, 2002, Page 25 3. That all other requirements be met (storm water runoff, parking lot lighting, access to parking space, etc.) through the Site Plan Review process. 4. That all required improvements be completed within one year from the approval of this NCU request. 5. The south driveway be closed. Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Foster. . . Ave Keene . .Ave Patrick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Smith. . .Aye Ruge . .Ave On a Roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED w/CONDITIONS. d. Ordinance Amendments (Accessory Structure and Front Yard Setbacks) Mr. Ruge stated that Ms. Stachowiak had indicated the language that was currently presented was found unenforceable by the Court, so it was tabled. Next meeting, Wednesday, May 15, 2002 at 4:00 p.m. 316 N. Capitol Ave., Department Conference Room. 2. URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, Ms. Patrick, Chair Next meeting, Tuesday, April 23, 2002, at 6:00 p.m. Council Chambers, 10th Floor, City Hall, 124 W. Michigan Ave. 3. Committee of the Whole - None. 4. Executive Committee - None. C. REPORT FROM PLANNING MANAGER Mr. Ruff stated that the Development Planning Committee of Council met today and recommended approval of the recent rezoning requests that the Board has recommended. Z-21-2001 and Z-1-2002 were approved. PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 16, 2002, Page 26 D. PENDING ITEMS (future action required) 1. Zoning and Ordinance Committee a. - - urner St.,"H- Light Industrial District to"G-V Business District(Tabled February 11, 1998) b. Z-5-1998,401-407 E. Grand River, "F"Commercial District to"G-1"Business District(Tabled June 10, 1998) C. Z-8-2000, 3901 S. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd.,"F"Commercial to"H" Light Industrial District(Tabled June 14, 2000) d. Z-15-2000, 301 W. Lenawee Street, Professional Office to"G-V Business District(Tabled January 17,2001 e. P-1-2001,Tentative Preliminary Plat, Wexford Woods(Tabled June 13, May 9, 2001) f. PRD-2-2001, "Crystal Woods", Planned Residential Neighborhood (Tabled Commercial District August 15, 20011 g. SLU-6-2001, 51 -519 E. Grand River Ave., Church in"F-1" (Tabled November 14,2001) h. SLU-8-2001, 3000 W. Miller Road,Additional Parking for an Existing Church (Tabled November 14,2001) i. SLU-1-2002, 1400 Block,W.Jolly Road, Special Land Use Permit- New Church Ordinance Amendments, Front Yard Setbacks and Accessory Structures 2. brban Development Committee a. Act-9-2000, 201 E. Grand River Avenue, Proj. Sign Over ROW (Tabled June 27, 2000) b. Act-2-2002, Lansing Housing Commission Property, 310 Seymour,Acquisition for public purposes(Tabled February 26, 2002) 3. Committee of the Whole 4. Planning Board a. Act-27-2001, 313 E. Grand River Ave. (Comfort Station), Market for Sale (Tabled April 2, 2002) 8. NEW BUSINESS - None. 9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON - None. 10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS Ms. Foster stated that during the Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting there was a discussion about obtaining a legal opinion regarding the flood plain development zoning that the City currently has. The second thing discussed was affordable housing and that some people could argue whether or not there was enough affordable housing in Lansing. The last thing mentioned briefly was looking into whether 1% of private development budget could go into art or any construction that will be occurring in the city. She inquired about the Z&O Committee obtaining a legal opinion of whether or not some of these things could happen here in Lansing. She explained that Portland, Oregon takes 1% of the total budget and applies it towards art. Mr. Ruff stated he would check into the matter. He also stated that he could obtain a report on affordable housing from Mr. Emil Winnicker, Development Manager. There was a general discussion that followed regarding affordable housing. PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 16, 2002, Page 27 11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS Mr. Ruge stated that he has not seen any changes with the church on Michigan Ave. He knew about the enforcement action taken against the church but he is not seeing any changes. Mr. Ruge inquired about the plumbing business on Lake Lansing. He stated that the plumbing business rebuilt all the curbs and put a curb cut in front of the building. Mr. Ruff stated he would check into the matter. Ms. Foster inquired about who determines street widening and street improvements. Mr. Ruff stated that in the City of Lansing, the City makes those determinations except if it is a state trunk line, the City would work cooperatively. Mr. Ruff discussed Capitol Improvements Mr. Frederick inquired about the King World convenient store that is located on the southwest corner of Kalamazoo and Clemens. He stated that the store looks like it has a beer and wine license and that in his opinion it is looking like trouble, especially with signs. Mr. Ruff stated that he would look into the matter. 12. ADJOURNMENT - Meeting was adjourned at 9:28 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James A. Ruff, Secretary, Planning Board PB Minutes.041602.wpd PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 16, 2002, Page 16 Ms. Keene asked if he could tell her exactly the damages that they paid out to the nature of the injury to the residents. How did the spill impact their lives? Mr. Cole said out of the 580 residences that were asked to evacuate they all had to find alternative housing anywhere from one day to one night to seven nights. So, they paid for that cost. They paid for the cost of their meals while they were evacuated from their homes. They paid for the cost of boarding their pets if that was needed. All of those who were evacuated had their gas and their power turned off at their home during the evacuation period. Some of those residences are in an area where basement sump pumps are required to operate continually or the basement floods, so in some houses they had to repair flood damage because their sump pump was off when they evacuated. Any legitimate claim that they brought forward was paid. They used a check writing system with a check written on a local bank so that they had immediate access to the money. Altogether in that type of claim situation they spent in excess of 1.5 million dollars. Mr. Ruge said he wanted to clarify. To these 580 residences they paid 1.5 million dollars? Mr. Cole said not to each one. In aggregate for lodging, transportation, food, and for incidental damages to there home in the evacuation period. Ms. Keene said she assumes that the pipeline was repaired and it is still in existence where it was at the time. Mr. Cole said it was repaired in that 7 day period and put back into service. It is still in service today in the same location. Lisa Dedden, Ingham County Commissioner representing District 10, stated her district is the south Lansing area. She is strongly opposed to the Wolverine Pipe Line proposal to construct a pipeline across south Lansing. Her opposition is for herself and on behalf of her constituents who live in homes, apartments and manufactured housing along the proposed route along 1-96. Enclosed in the documents are a copy of resolution 01-156, entitled Resolution in Opposition to Proposed Wolverine Pipe Line routes against densely populated residential areas in Ingham County, which was adopted by the Ingham County Board of Commissioners on May 22, 2001 and which specifically addresses and expresses opposition to Wolverine's proposal to construct this route south Lansing along the 1-96 right of way. Also in the packet is another document that she has also filed with the Michigan Public Service Commission which is a photo addendum to her grief and opposition to this route. As you look at the packet, you can see visual evidence of people PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 16, 2002, Page 17 who live in this area and that there are a number of people there and that there are a number of businesses in contradiction to some of the comments that the applicant has made on that issue. In particular, she is here tonight to say Wolverine's request to construct this pipeline in Lansing should be denied because it would place this pipeline to close to far to many high consequence areas including densely populated neighborhoods consisting of homes, apartments, and manufactured housing communities, public wells upon which a large segment of mid- Michigan's population is dependent for the water supply, schools, a congested and growing business district and at least one sizeable daycare center. Routing a petroleum products pipeline through this level of residential and commercial development unacceptably compromises the safety and interest of thousands of Lansing residents. Official United States Census Data shows that 9,113 persons live in 4,295 housing units in the Census blocks immediately adjacently to 1-96 where this proposal runs through the city of Lansing alone. In conclusion, she stated that as witnesses have attested throughout both the case currently before the PSC and the Meridian Township case before the PSC, the risks associated with the presence of a petroleum products pipeline no matter how safely the company may attempt to construct and operate that line from an engineering standpoint are necessarily increased when the pipeline is located in an area with high density of residential and commercial development and this added risk is contrary to the public interest and safety of Lansing residents. She respectfully urged the Board to deny the proposal before them. John Pollard, resident of 1718 Blair street, stated he is vehemently opposed to the Wolverine Pipe Line. It certainly is going to threaten over 9,100 people, 4,200 housing units, 23 of 110 wells, that is about 22 percent of the drinking water of Lansing, 73 abandoned wells and the water supply for over 200,000 mid-Michigan residents. Absolutely never should you ever take a chance on jeopardizing water supply. When we need gasoline a hundred years from now, a thousand years from now who knows. It could be solar, nuclear or anything. Where human beings need air and water ten thousand years from now you betcha just like we have for ten thousand years that preceded us. The Office of Pipeline Safety may come here to watch the initial construction. They are not going to stand out there and watch this construction or supervise them the whole period. They typically show up at the beginning, watch them dig, and wonder off into the sunset. According to figures released by the U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of Pipeline Safety, in 1998 the latest year for which the data was available, Michigan petroleum and natural gas lines had to repair 9,300 leaking underground gas lines and that figure is double what it was in 1991. Maybe they are getting better with their technology but they are finding more and more problems. He had data from the Office of Pipeline Safety. One of things that they are always PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 16, 2002, Page 18 going to try and tell you is that the leading cause of accidents and problems of pipelines are third party damage. People coming and digging. If you were to take all the problems that cause leakages whether it is by volume or cause of accident, for example, if corrosion of a pipeline, failed pipeline, failed well, incorrect operation of a pipeline and malfunctioning equipment, that is 42.4 percent of all the spillage product. It is also 46 percent of all the accidents whereas this third party stuff they are talking about is only 24 percent. What has happened is dis- aggregated all the data related to a pipeline but when you re-aggregate the data, the pipeline is the biggest cause of problems with a pipeline not the outside source. Finally, he stated that he is opposed to the pipeline because this is nothing short of environmental discrimination or racism. The pipeline is coming through here. He has the 2000 Census data for the track level: the tracks that run along East Lansing and Meridian, the six tracks that run along Lansing. We have 12 percent to a 55 percent of a minority population compared to Meridian of 7.6 or 17 percent. The median or average minority population totals in Lansing are 30.8 percent or 30.4 percent respectively. That is about 190.6 times greater than it is in Meridian and 2 2/3 times greater than it is in Meridian, if I look at the average and the median. We have more children and more poor people living along the pipeline. The average household income in Lansing is $49,784 compared to $83,000. There are some tracks in Lansing that are 12%, 15%, 25%, 36%, 38.3% and 55.5% minority. To do this is to violate civil rights, is to violate the 141h Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and he's asking the Board to turn Wolverine down, send them packing and find an alternate route. This does not come through a densely populated area which is an oxymoron. There is no such thing as a safe pipeline where there are people. Send the pipeline out in the wilderness somewhere and if it blows up, we'll save the wilderness and no one will die. Brian Smith, resident of 1007 Woodbine, Chairman of Citizens for a Better Lansing, stated there is not much more that he could add. He feels that constructing the pipeline is contrary to public interest and safety by putting the pipeline through the city of Lansing. This case should be about public interest and safety not big business and who has the deepest pockets. It is clear that Wolverine calculated their risks based on the ability of the impacted families and businesses to fight them and not on the risk of population of minorities, low income families and children who would be effected the most if the pipeline fails. Basically, deny the pipeline. Clyde Dugan, Special Projects Director and Water Utilities Director for the Lansing Board of Water and Light, stated that he submitted testimony on behalf of Board of Water and Light in opposition to the Wolverine Pipe Line in the MPSE hearings. He wanted to go over briefly the elements of what he submitted and what the opposition was. The PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 16, 2002, Page 19 proposed pipeline runs through 9 '/2 miles of public water supply well head protection areas. The well head protection areas were determined by the United States Geological Survey using computer models of the Aquifer system to delineated well head protection areas were then approved by Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. Well head protection areas are those areas that contribute water to public water supply wells within a 10 year time frame. Parenthetically, that also includes any constituents of any product that are soluble in water when water travels at that speed. In other words, if a contaminate is introduced into the ground or into the Aquifer in these areas, it will reach a public water supply well within ten years. Ten public drinking water wells that are within a one quarter mile buffer zone would be impacted directly by a leakage of gasoline contaminants from the pipeline and an additional 13 wells are within the adjacent well head protection areas. Of these 23 wells, 21 are Board of Water and Light wells. The 21 BWL wells within the impacted well head protection area represent 22% of our total well field capacity and they are very productive wells requiring minimal conditioning, so they represent 25% of our base load capacity. In addition to existing wells, the proposed pipeline route goes through areas where new wells are planned and that will be a well head protection area in the future. The water supply wells within the well have protection area would be significantly impacted by either a catastrophic failure, which is a sudden and large release, and that type of failure can be detected by the pipeline control system, or a non-catastrophic failure, which is an undetected leak. One of the experts for the Wolverine Pipe Line Company represented that up to 16 gallons a minute could be lost without the automatic protective system catching it. Contamination that enters the ground will, unless completely removed, likely enter the drinking water Aquifer. The layer of rock predominately shale that separates ground water from the glacial Aquifer or the overlying aquifer is discontinuous and much of this portion of the well head protection area and that was also reflected in the environmental assessment done by Wolverine's consultant. In addition, the proposed pipeline route passes through our southwest well field, the Steiffold well field well head protection area, which has no protective layer at all and by definition this well head protection area represents 10 year time and travel, not decades as represented by Mr. Cole. All of these observations have been confirmed by the BWL Hydro Geologists consultant. In the case of a catastrophic failure, if the automatic system is engaged, a quantity of 3.1 million gallons per day at 14.40 psi ensures a considerable amount of liquid petroleum will be forced directly into the ground and we have indicated in the file testimony what the volume of that would be. A non-catastrophic failure, such as an undetected leak, is even of greater concern than the sudden catastrophic type. Any automated control system has limited sensitivity to detect leaks with a flow volume of 3.1 million gallons per day, just 1/100 of 1% represents 310 gallons per day of gasoline into the ground system. The first indication of leak would likely PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 16, 2002, Page 20 be when the contaminates were first measured in the BWL drinking water wells. Ron Ashley, resident of 4521 Old Lansing Road, stated he has been a life long resident of Lansing. He finds it very odd that we have heard so little from the local media, State Journal or any of the local news channels. Little, if best, has been said and he cannot understand how few people are here tonight to speak on behalf of trying to stop the pipeline. As a realtor for 20 years, developers always try to find the path of least resistence to put through what they want over the desires or the objections of other people who are already there on the property that they are trying to cross. He feels that Wolverine is going across the south side of Lansing because there is so much rental property and less opposition from home owners that Wolverine thinks they can get away with this and get it across without anybody saying too much about it. He wanted to know that if Wolverine goes along 1-96, are they paying the state some kind of fee to run alongside the expressway instead of buying land and running the pipeline through the countryside away from the city. Is this why the public has not heard anything about the pipeline or is there something he is missing on the matter. As the pipeline crosses 1-96, when it reaches an overpass of one of the under streets of south Lansing, where is it routed then? Is it buried in the ground of one of the lower streets or how is it handled at this point? (i.e. 1-96 crosses Cedar Street, South Washington Avenue, Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd., etc.) Mr. Ruff stated that it is his understanding of what is called directional drilling, where Wolverine would actually drill underneath the street intersection, even deeper to get underneath Cedar Street and the same would be for rivers that would be crossed. Wolverine would drill underneath the river and then back up the other side, even a 12 inch steel pipe has a bend to it over a certain length of time. Mr. Ashley stated that he finds it very odd that some corporation can come into the City and their wishes and their desires are more important than the people who live in the City and pay taxes in the City and who have lived here their whole lives. He used to live in Dimondale and the same thing happened to a tract of land behind the subdivision in which he lived. The land was as dormant as a farmer's field for years. The sewer line was put in from Dimondale out to Grand Pointe marina. The company that laid the pipeline found out that the land was zoned multiple dwelling and they went to the township and threatened them because they wanted to put in a trailer park. The representative of the company stood there the first night at the township meeting and said the company has a quarter of a million dollars to sue anybody who will fight us. He stated that was so bazaar and so obnoxious that people who would build homes and live in that subdivision for 30 years, older people who are in their retirement years, had this on their backs and had this thrown in their face PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 16, 2002, Page 21 as being life long residents of that township. He cannot believe that they thought they could just blow right in and stomp all over these people's life long living out there and enjoying their property and paying their taxes and thought their desires were more important than the people who lived out there. He stated that he would be ashamed of the Board if they allowed Wolverine to pull this stunt in the City of Lansing. Dan Judd, resident of 1707 W. Ottawa, stated that he is the owner of ARQ, Inc., the company who is proposing to purchase the building at 934 Clark Street and was directed to speak during the Comments from the Audience. Seeing no one else wishing to speak on this matter, Mr. Frederick referred Act-7-2002 to the Planning Board, Committee of the Whole, to meet on Tuesday, April 23, 2002 at Council Chambers, 101h Floor City Hall, 124 W. Michigan Avenue. 5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE Dan Judd, resident of 1707 W. Ottawa, stated that the proposal looks like it recommended that a substitution go through with a couple of caveats that include the driveway, whether it be the driveway and a parking lot or just the driveway, the hard surface being with some type of porous pavement and that there should be some sort of landscape, screening and buffering zones. He wasn't sure if that meant a fence or if it meant that the company had to build a burm. He stated that the company has not yet purchased the property and how this goes will depend on how the company change whatever offer that has been made to the property owner. Mr. Ruff stated that the porous pavement is with the idea it would not be hard surfaced in such a way with asphalt or concrete the parking area and driveway so that water would not be able to percolate into the ground. It could be gravel or some other surface that would allow water to penetrate into the ground and that may take from a site plan review stand point whether a certain gravel is approved that it be properly edged so that it doesn't spill over any place or if another material is used like brick, cobbles, or concrete pavers, that would be an option as well. Then the landscape, screening and buffering could include fencing, fencing and landscaping or landscaping. Mr. Ruff wasn't sure if there was fencing on the site presently but stated it would be to help soften the parking lot areas primarily from the adjoining residential properties. That is the purpose of it and that it could take on many different forms that could be designed to meet not only the company's financial needs but also meet the code requirements for buffering. Mr. Judd stated that he could get some type of reasonable quotes and talk with the Planning Department. His biggest concern was that the only quick quotes the company could get on anything that wasn't basically gravel was going for $10.00 a square foot, which would add conservatively $40,000-$50,000 to this PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 16, 2002, Page 22 project unless the owner cut the price of the building by over half the amount. The building is going to be vacant for a very, very long time. If gravel is a reasonable option, then that is what the company would like to do. Mr. Ruff stated that if this request is approved with these conditions, it doesn't mean the company still has to purchase the building. Seeing no one else wishing to address the Board, Mr. Frederick closed the public comment period. 6. RECESS was taken by the Board. 7. BUSINESS SESSION A. Ms. Keene moved; seconded by Ms. Foster to approve the minutes of April 2, 2002 without corrections. On a voice vote, motion carried (6-0), the minutes of April 2, 2002 were APPROVED. B. Committee Reports 1. ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE, Mr. Ruge, Chair a. Z-5-2002, 1500 E. Cavanaugh Road, "I" Heavy Industrial District to "G-2" Wholesale District and "H" Light Industrial District This is a request by Kevin VanErman to rezone a 13.968 acre parcel located at 1500 E. Cavanaugh Road, west of Aurelius Rd., immediately east of the Penn. Central Railroad right-of-way and more particularly described as: W Y2 OF W Y2 OF SE 1/4 LYING E OF MC RR R/W, EXC COM SEC CEN, TH S 185.5 FT TO MC RR R/W, SE'LY ALONG MC RR R/W 268 FT TO OPEN DRAIN, N 4DEG 50MIN E ALONG SAID DRAIN TO E&W 1/4 LINE, W 119 FT TO BEG; SEC 34 T4N R2W from "I" Heavy Industrial District to "G-2" Wholesale District and "H" Light Industrial District. The applicant proposes to rezone the north 3.51 acres to "G-2" Wholesale District and the remaining 10.45 acres to "H" Light Industrial District. The purpose of the request is to allow for the creation of small industrial park. PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 16, 2002, Page 23 PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows: Ms. Patrick made a motion, seconded by Ms. Keene to recommend approval of Z-5-2002, 1500 E. Cavanaugh Road, "I" Heavy Industrial District to "G-2" Wholesale District and "H" Light Industrial District. Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Foster. . . Aye Keene . .Ave Patrick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Smith. .Ave Ruge .Aye On a Roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. b. Z-6-2002, Willoughby Road, A" Residential District to "DM-2" Residential District This is a request by John E. Sabty to rezone a vacant 62 acre parcel from "A" Residential District (single family) to "DM-2" Residential District (multiple family). The property is located north of Willoughby Rd. and south of 1-96 in the southeast 1/4 of Section 9, T3N-R2W, City of Lansing and more particularly described as: The East % of the Southeast 114 of the Southwest 114 and the Southwest 114 of the Southeast 114 lying South of the southerly right of way line of 1-96 Section 9 T3N-R2W, City of Lansing, Ingham County, MI., except the West 100.0 feet. The purpose of the request is to allow for the creation of an 850 unit multi-family development. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows: Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Ms. Foster to recommend approval of Z-6-2002, Willoughby Road, "A" Residential District to "B" Residential District with the assumption that a PRD will be submitted and there will be a 25% bonus density by utilizing the energy conservation techniques. For the record, the Board PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 16, 2002, Page 24 received an agreement from Mr. Sabty to amend his application for rezoning to "B" Residential District. Frederick . . Ave Foster. . . Ave Keene . .Ave Patrick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..Aye Smith. . .Ave Ruge . .Aye On a Roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. C. NCU-1-2002, 934 Clark Street, Request for Substitution and Class A Status for a Nonconformity This is a request by ARQ Inc. for a substitution of a nonconforming use and Class A status for the property located at 934 Clark Street. The applicant proposes to make approximately $50,000 in improvements to the subject building in order to change its use from a printing business to an office that provides internet services. The subject property is currently zoned "B" Residential and is nonconforming for parking and use. This is not a matter of a rezoning. Mr. Ruge inquired about nonconforming for parking. He stated that he went to the site and it seemed there was plenty of space for parking. There was an empty lot next door which Mr. Judd indicated was part of the deal and that it looked like at one time it had a house on the property. Mr. Ruff stated that it was probably nonconforming for improvement and that parking number is contingent upon the use. Mr. Ruff gave the example of a use that required only five spaces, it might not be nonconforming for number. When you have a gravel surface or have something that is not lined, it is difficult to say. You can say that you can get so many spaces but practically when people park on gravel they don't park the same as if you would give it hard surfacing and lines. The parking number is probably not the coefficient that is nonconforming. It is probably due to the surfacing or its improvement. PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 16, 2002, Page 25 Mr. Ruge inquired about the City's standards for lighting in a parking lot. Mr. Ruff stated that there is no requirement for lighting but if you do, the lighting is supposed to remain on site. It is not supposed to be directed or spill over to the adjacent properties. Mr. Ruff also stated that most insurance companies demand that you have lighting. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows: Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Ms. Foster to recommend approval of NCU-1-2002, 934 Clark Street, Request for Substitution and Class A Status for a Nonconformity with the following conditions: 1. The driveway be hard-surfaced with porous pavement. 2. Landscape, screening and buffering be provided along the periphery of the property as required by the Zoning Ordinance. 3. That all other requirements be met (storm water runoff, parking lot lighting, access to parking space, etc.) through the Site Plan Review process. 4. That all required improvements be completed within one year from the approval of this NCU request. 5. The south driveway be closed. Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Foster. . . Ave Keene . .Ave Patrick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Smith. . .Ave Ruge . .Ave On a Roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED w/CONDITIONS. d. Ordinance Amendments (Accessory Structure and Front Yard Setbacks) Mr. Ruge stated that Ms. Stachowiak had indicated the language that was currently presented was found unenforceable by the Court, so it was tabled. Next meeting, Wednesday, May 15, 2002 at 4:00 p.m. 316 N. Capitol Ave., Department Conference Room. PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 16, 2002, Page 26 2. URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, Ms. Patrick, Chair Next meeting, Tuesday, April 23, 2002, at 6:00 p.m. Council Chambers, 101h Floor, City Hall, 124 W. Michigan Ave. 3. Committee of the Whole - None. 4. Executive Committee - None. C. REPORT FROM PLANNING MANAGER Mr. Ruff stated that the Development Planning Committee of Council met today and recommended approval of the recent rezoning requests that the Board has recommended. Z-21-2001 and Z-1-2002 were approved. D. PENDING ITEMS (future action required) 1. Zoning and Ordinance Committee a. - - urner St.,"H" Light Industrial District to"G-1" Business District(fabled February 11, 1998) b. Z-5-1998 401-407 E. Grand River,"F"Commercial District to"G-1" Business District(fabled June 10, 1998) C. Z-8-2000, 3901 S. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd.,7"Commercial to"H" Light Industrial District(Tabled June 14,2000) d. Z-15-2000, 301 W. Lenawee Street, Professional Office to"G-1"Business District(Tabled January 17,2001 e. P-1-2001,Tentative Preliminary lat,Wexford Woods (Tabled June 13, May 9, 2001) f. PRD-2-2001,"Crystal Woods", Planned Residential Neighborhood (Tabled August 15,2001) g. SLU-6-2001, 51 -519 E. Grand River Ave., Church in"F-1"Commercial District (Tabled November 14, 2001) h. LU-8-2001, 3000 W. Miller Road,Additional Parking for an Existing Church (Tabled November 14,2001) i. SLU-1-2002, 1400 Block,W. Jolly Road, Special Land Use Permit-New Church Ordinance Amendments, Front Yard Setbacks and Accessory Structures 2. brban Development Committee a. Act-9-2000,201 E. Grand River Avenue, Proj. Sign Over ROW (Tabled June 27, 2000) b. Act-2-2002, Lansing Housing Commission Property, 310 Seymour,Acquisition for public purposes (Tabled February 26,2002) 3. Committee of the Whole 4. Planning Board a. Act-27-2001, 313 E. Grand River Ave. (Comfort Station), Market for Sale(Tabled April 2,2002) 8. NEW BUSINESS - None. PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 16, 2002, Page 27 9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON - None. 10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS Ms. Foster stated that during the Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting there was a discussion about obtaining a legal opinion regarding the flood plain development zoning that the City currently has. The second thing discussed was affordable housing and that some people could argue whether or not there was enough affordable housing in Lansing. The last thing mentioned briefly was looking into whether 1% of private development budget could go into art or any construction that will be occurring in the city. She inquired about the Z&O Committee obtaining a legal opinion of whether or not some of these things could happen here in Lansing. She explained that Portland, Oregon takes 1% of the total budget and applies it towards art. Mr. Ruff stated he would check into the matter. He also stated that he could obtain a report on affordable housing from Mr. Emil Winnicker, Development Manager. There was a general discussion that followed regarding affordable housing. 11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS Mr. Ruge stated that he has not seen any changes with the church on Michigan Ave. He knew about the enforcement action taken against the church but he is not seeing any changes. Mr. Ruge inquired about the plumbing business on Lake Lansing. He stated that the plumbing business rebuilt all the curbs and put a curb cut in front of the building. Mr. Ruff stated he would check into the matter. Ms. Foster inquired about who determines street widening and street improvements. Mr. Ruff stated that in the City of Lansing, the City makes those determinations except if it is a state trunk line, the City would work cooperatively. Mr. Ruff discussed the Capitol Improvements Mr. Frederick inquired about the King World convenient store that is located on the southwest corner of Kalamazoo and Clemens. He stated that the store looks like it has a beer and wine license and that in his opinion it is looking like trouble. Mr. Ruff stated that he would look into the matter. PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 16, 2002, Page 28 12. ADJOURNMENT - Meeting was adjourned at 9:28 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James A. Ruff, Secretary, Planning Board PB Minutes.041602.wpd Approved as written 4-16-02 Draft to Clerk April 12,2002 Approved April 16,2002 To Clerk April 17,2002 Minutes of the Regular Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD 7:00 p.m., Tenth Floor, Council Chambers Lansing City Hall Tuesday, April 2, 2002 1. OPENING SESSION The meeting was called to order at 7:03 p.m. by Chairman Frederick. A. Roll call. Present: Frederick, Foster, Keene, Patrick, Smith, Ruge. B. Staff Attending: Ruff, Stachowiak, Rieske, Wee. C. Excused absence: Ms. Cordill. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA It was moved by Ms. Keene, supported by Mr. Ruge to approve the revised agenda. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (6-0). 3. COMMUNICATIONS A. Letter from Ms. Katherine Kennell supporting the improvements for NCU-1-2002. B. Letter from the North Lansing Community Association, submitted by Ms. Beverly Miller, stating the association would like to purchase the Comfort Station property for a nominal fee of $1.00 and how the association has occupied, maintained and improved the property since 1980. 4. HEARINGS A. Z-5-2002, 1500 E. Cavanaugh Road, "I" Heavy Industrial District to "G-2" Wholesale District and "H" Light Industrial District This is a request by Kevin VanErman to rezone a 13.968 acre parcel located at 1500 E. Cavanaugh Road, west of Aurelius Rd., immediately east of the Penn. Central Railroad right-of-way and more particularly described as: W '/z OF W '/2 OF SE 1/4 LYING E OF MC RR R/W, EXC COM SEC CEN, TH S 185.5 FT TO MC RR R/W, SE'LY ALONG MC RR R/W 268 FT TO OPEN DRAIN, N 4DEG 50MIN E ALONG SAID DRAIN TO E&W 1/4 LINE, W 119 FT TO BEG; SEC 34 T4N R2W PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 2, 2002, Page 2 from "I" Heavy Industrial District to "G-2" Wholesale District and "H" Light Industrial District. The applicant proposes to rezone the north 3.51 acres to "G-2" Wholesale District and the remaining 10.45 acres to "H" Light Industrial District. The purpose of the request is to allow for the creation of small industrial park. Sue Stachowiak gave a brief overview. Richard Cooley, representing the applicant, stated that the Planning staff recommended approval of the special land use permit. Public Service approved the site plan for the private road and utility construction and also approved the special land use permit which would allow construction of buildings in the flood plain. He stated that last fall when the Planning Board dealt with the special land use issue, there were concerns for potential environmental hazzards to the water resource of Sycamore Creek based on the allowable uses in the heavy industrial district in the current zoning ordinance. He stated that City Council had the same concerns when the special land use issue was brought before them at the January 2002 City Council meeting. Even though heavy industrial zoning does comply with the Master Plan, the applicant, Mr. VanErman, acknowledged these concerns as legitimate. He stated that after several meetings with Mr. Ruff, EDC, architects and marketing contacts, Mr. VanErman carefully considered and electively consented to a change in the zoning district of the property to a lesser district in order to address the concerns voiced by the Planning Board and City Council. During the discussions, staff had proposed a "G-2" Wholesale District as being most closely aligned with the proposed uses for this business park. He stated that this would address the Planning Board and City Council concerns by eliminating a lot of the uses that would be allowed under the district, but that it would eliminate several strong perspective users that the applicant and EDC anticipated would want to locate to Lansing. It was the desire on behalf of the City of Lansing as well as Mr. VanErman to accommodate the GM suppliers and the efforts to keep the GM plants local in Lansing. It should be noted that EDC would like to see this property designated as an industrial development district or be part of one based on the intentions to try to locate the suppliers in the City. After all these considerations, Mr. VanErman came up with this proposal in case Z-5-2002, which involved the two districts mentioned ("G-2" Wholesale District being on the Cavanaugh Road frontage, about 3 Y2 acres, and "H" Light Industrial on the remaining 10 '/2 acres) to accommodate the possibility, and the good prospect of the GM supplier. These zoning PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 2, 2002, Page 3 districts would allow the uses, including the office warehousing that put forth before, to range from warehousing and distribution all the way up to some light industrial uses if processing, packaging and assembling of items inside a building. With all the internal checks and balances available in this process to the City of Lansing regarding the Planning staff and Public Service input during the site plan review, the special land use permit processes involving MDEQ, the regulations regarding flood plain, water ways, wetlands and air quality, the input from the Ingham County Drain Commissioner that was sought by City Council, all the various Federal regulations and also the regulations that the lender involved in this project is going to have of Mr. VanErman, he believes that the zoning pattern that has been proposed with the combination of "G-2" Wholesale district and "H" Light Industrial district and the resulting uses in these districts would find acceptable to the Planning Board and City Council. Seeing no one else wishing to speak on this matter, Mr. Frederick referred Z-5-2002 to the next Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting to be held on Wednesday, April 10, 2002 at 316 N. Capitol Avenue. B. Z-6-2002, Willoughby Road, "A" Residential District to "DM-2" Residential District This is a request by John E. Sabty to rezone a vacant 62 acre parcel from "A" Residential District (single family) to "DM-2" Residential District (multiple family). The property is located north of Willoughby Rd. and south of 1-96 in the southeast 1/4 of Section 9, T3N-R2W, City of Lansing and more particularly described as: The East % of the Southeast 114 of the Southwest 114 and the Southwest 114 of the Southeast 114 lying South of the southerly right of way line of 1-96 Section 9 T3N-R2W, City of Lansing, Ingham County, MI., except the West 100.0 feet. The purpose of the request is to allow for the creation of an 850 unit multi- family development. Sue Stachowiak gave a brief overview. Mr. Ruge inquired about the City's plans for the property and how the City gained the property. Ms. Stachowiak stated she wasn't sure and that Mr. Sabty looked into purchasing the property from the City but for whatever reason decided not to include it as part of his request. Ms. Stachowiak 1 PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 2, 2002, Page 4 explained that there is a cell phone tower possibly located on the triangular parcel portion to the north of the property. Mr. Ruge stated that the report indicated the City sewers are not sufficient to handle a development of this size. Ms. Stachowiak stated that this was the statement that the Public Service Department had made regarding Z-8-2001 and that the Public Service Department is currently still making this comment. There was a general discussion on how resolve the situation. John Sabty, resident of 140 E. Second Street, Flint, stated that he was representing the owner of the property who is based out of New York City. Some of the concerns that were presented he has tried to address with some of the studies that were required from the last proposal. He stated that the storm sewer issue was readily resolvable because of an existing storm drain and that an older storm drain is still located on the property. He was under the understanding that the existing sanitary sewer system has no capacity at all. He stated that there is a plan in process that the department is working through to determine how it can deliver additional capacity, not only for a development such as this, but for other developments as well. He stated that depending on the zoning change request, the company could not begin until the question about the capacity issue had been addressed. He stated that the company is currently incorporating a certain amount of density into their plan for a future expansion of the sewer system that is required for that area. With the traffic inpact study, he wasn't aware that another department had requested additional information. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the Transportation Department had not commented on anything. Mr. Sabty stated that with the traffic flow on Willoughby Road and the way the road is designed with the front yard setbacks and the gravel on the sides of each road, there is probably room for expansion of the road in and around the company's development. He stated at this point, the company is trying to determine an acceptable level for density so the company can move forward with a plan that would encompass acceptable sewer, road, storm drainage, etc. The company is at a starting point and cannot begin because there is not a level of density that has been approved. He mentioned a site plan and wondered if a copy had been give to the Board members. He stated the site plan was a general concept of what the building would look like. The site plan does not show elevations. He stated that these are not Army barracks type facilities that PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 2, 2002, Page 5 would be built and that these are common structures with what is going on throughout the United States. These buildings are three stories with balconies and pitched roofs and would have a colonial type look. He stated that the company has tried to encompass the wetland areas in order to make it an expansion of the existing park that the City owns. In reference to the City's property, he stated that the property is Parcel B and that it is a dedicated park that is owned by the City of Lansing. The company's only interest with that property was to help preserve it as a park because it would be a viable buffer zone between the single family neighborhood and the company's property. One of the questions was to trade some of the company's wetlands for the park. He stated that there is a formula which is a 2-to-1 ratio where the company could purchase the property, for every one of the company's acres it would be two of the park's acres. He stated that the company could put money into the park to help preserve it rather than having the park as an open space. He stated that the company's interest is to leave the park as is and if anything, maybe upgrade it so it would be more of a user friendly park for the neighborhood and for the company's development. Christine Timmon, resident of 339 E. St. Joseph Apt. #3, stated that she is representing citizens who are concerned about the developers coming into the City and the developments where the City of Lansing has about 500 houses that are in a blight status but qualify for rehabilitation under Public Act 27. This was recently done and signed by the Governor. The original bill is House Bill 4028 and it states that all cities must rehab all blighting properties whether red tagged or not in 42 days to 119 days. She is concerned that when developers come into the City, they don't take into consideration how they can really help. She stated that Mr. Sabty needs to ride around Lansing and see all the houses he can get for a song and a dance. There are a couple of properties on Lenawee Street, 505 W. Lenawee and the property next door. She stated that there is a developer right now who is turning these blighted properties into two new single family dwellings. While the developers come in and build new developments, all the blighted properties continue to be ignored. She stated it is her belief that under the new Public Act 27, if anyone is injured on a blighted property and they haven't been notified by the City, the City could be liable for it. She questioned why developers won't try to help the City to fill in the blanks with these blighted properties and turn them into one family units rather than building apartments and multiple dwellings, leaving all the PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 2, 2002, Page 6 City's good housing go to waste. The government is now saying that if you can prove that you have the ability to take care of a blighted property, you can send a letter to the City of Lansing specifying a particular property qualifies under Public Act 27 as a blighted property. If they don't want to fix it within the 119 days then they must sell the property to whomever for forfeit by eminent novae. She hopes Mr. Sabty will take it to heart and find out where these properties are located and help the City reestablish itself as a city with some single family dwellings. Charlene Decker, resident of 2711 Pleasant Grove Road, stated that she is concerned about the dedicated parcel of land that is a park owned by the City of Lansing and the trading of park land. She stated that the property is a dedicated park and that it would involve the residents of Lansing. As a resident of many years, she chose Lansing because of the beautiful green space, pass of space and water ways. She stated that the parks are an essence of Lansing and that too many things go out as a negative by people about this city. We do have beautiful parks and river front and she wants these treated with great delicacy when you talk about anything being put away that is dedicated. Belinda Fitzpatrick, resident of 224 S. Holmes Street, stated that she wore her shirt that reflects Stop Eminent Domain Abuse and that she received the shirt from the Institute for Justice, which is a public interest law firm in Washington, D.C. She stated that eminent domain forfeiture is unconstitutional and a violation of the 5`h Amendment. She also would prefer to see properties rehabilitated over land development. She stated that when the developments occur, the City needs to evaluate whether or not these developments will encourage the rehabilitation of other properties. She is also concerned about the park land and the compromise of the park land. Seeing no one else wishing to speak on this matter, Mr. Frederick referred Z-6-2002 to the next Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting to be held on Wednesday, April 10, 2002 at 316 N. Capitol Avenue. C. NCU-1-2002, 934 Clark Street, Request for Substitution and Class A Status for a Nonconformity This is a request by ARQ Inc. for a substitution of a nonconforming use and Class A status for the property located at 934 Clark Street. The applicant proposes to make approximately $50,000 in improvements to PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 2, 2002, Page 7 the subject building in order to change its use from a printing business to an office that provides internet services. The subject property is currently zoned "B" Residential and is nonconforming for parking and use. Sue Stachowiak gave a brief overview. Mr. Ruge stated that he visited the site and found a strange looking building in a residential neighborhood. There was a general discussion regarding the prior business activity of the building. Mr. Ruge inquired about the nonconforming use and if granted, would there be required buffering around the outside edge of the property. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the Board could make the conditions of improvements. Mr. Ruge inquired about whether or not the vacant lot to the north of the property was included. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the vacant lot it not included in the request. Dan Judd, 2875 Northwind Suite 205-D, stated that he is the owner of ARQ, Incorporated. He stated that the empty lot next to the building had a building on the property and was bought by the prior owner, Lansing Lithographers, and that it was part of the sale. There was a house on the property that at some point was condemned and then demolished a few months ago. He stated that the company is not sure of the finalization of the sale of the building so that it could be used as an office. The company would like to have some green space or maybe expand to allow for more parking. The company currently has five employees and at the rate of adding one employee per year, the building may only allow up to ten employees. At that time, the company may move to a larger facility or make use of the other (telephone hubs) ???. As far as maintenance of the building, the roof, chimney and interior plumbing are in disrepair, and the offices would need some minor painting as well. Mr. Ruge inquired about the use of computers in the building. Mr. Judd clarified that there would be computers in the building and that the company is very quiet. The company is a very low traffic business with customers or web site designers visiting every couple of days. Currently the company is doing off-site visits. PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 2, 2002, Page 8 Mr. Ruge inquired about an air conditioning system because of the amount of computers being used in the building. Mr. Judd stated that there are three air conditioning units in the building that are currently in working order and that these units would be more than sufficient for the company's needs. Mr. Ruge inquired if the company would need a special type of telephone system. Mr. Judd stated that a fiber DS-3 line would be added. He stated that contact with Ameritech has already been established and that Ameritech would have to pull the channel which is currently 1400 yards from the access point. Ameritech has informed Mr. Judd that this would not be a large undertaking. He stated that the company has a DS-3 line at their current location. Seeing no one else wishing to speak on this matter, Mr. Frederick referred NCU-1-2002 to the next Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting to be held on Wednesday, April 10, 2002 at 316 N. Capitol Avenue. D. Ordinance Amendments, Front Yard Setbacks and Accessory Structures The front yard setbacks apply to all the residential districts except the "DM-4" residential district. The "DM-4" residential district is the highest density district and primarily involves high rise type developments. These standards didn't apply to this district as they did to the other districts. The accessory buildings and structures involves the larger lot sizes having larger garage sizes in proportion to the lot. Sue Stachowiak gave a brief overview. Mr. Smith questioned the architectural compatibility requirement. He stated that the additions should be compatible with architectural scale and materials of the existing building and surrounding neighborhoods as determined by the Planning Office. He questioned who would make the final decision as to what is "architecturally compatible with surrounding buildings." Mr. Ruff stated that with the idea of a compatible setback, the Planning Office is looking at trying to maintain neighborhood appearance in respect to style. There was a general discussion about the language and final decisions of the setbacks. PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 2, 2002, Page 9 Mr. Frederick gave input on the Board of Zoning Appeals related situations. Christine Timmon, resident of 339 E. St. Joseph Apt. #3, stated that she has worked with Mr. Ruff in the past on amendments, variances and gravel driveways for some residents and not for others and that it sounds arbitrary. She also stated that it sounds like the City is giving more leeway towards the owners of the properties. She stated that Public Act 27 reflects that with these ordinances that you do, if the fines and fees on them are what it causing the house to be in a blighted state or abandoned because the owner cannot pay the fines and fees, then you cannot use arbitrary decisions. She stated that Public Act 27 protects home owners from arbitrary decisions. The City cannot arbitrarily continue to tell the owners how to fix their property, add fines on the property that cannot be paid and then have the house boarded. The only way the City can do this is if a person builds their property and the City does not approve the changes, the City will have to pay to have the property fixed. Charlene Decker, resident of 2711 Pleasant Grove Road, stated that she gets a little nervous when people start talking about compatibility, conformity, and whether or not someone likes a natural fence. She likes individuality. She stated her house is hers as long as it does not become a danger to society. She also stated that there are enough complications with the City's current ordinances and that these ordinances are being turned into a criminal process. She considers the City's fines out of line and stated that having one person make the ultimate decision does make her nervous. Belinda Fitzpatrick, resident of 224 S. Holmes Street, stated that it is hard to balance the rights of an individual in the community verses the rights of the community or rights of other individuals in the community. Before the City resorts to using the law and the rule of law for fines, fees and ordinances, the City should try to raise public appreciation regarding the street scape and architecture. She stated that you can ruin a neighborhood by not coordinating things and that the way to approach the issue is not through the law but through increased awareness. Beverly Miller, resident of 413 Pearl Street, questioned if accessary garages and storage buildings must be consistent with principle structures and color, architecture and materials, this would mean an owner could not build a concrete garage or wooden structured home. She stated that the garage and house would have to be in contrast with each other and that PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 2, 2002, Page 10 she wondered what happened for the City to go to this extreme. Mr. Frederick commented that a number of applications were brought before the Board of Zoning Appeals for variances and that this was the initiative behind the modification of these ordinances. There was a general discussion regarding the building structure and colors of homes. She stated that her home is over one hundred years old and that it is Victorian with gables. Her garage is very simple but does not match her house. She stated that the City should be able to mix materials, color and structures. Seeing no one else wishing to speak on this matter, Mr. Frederick referred the Ordinance Amendments to the next Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting to be held on Wednesday, April 10, 2002 at 316 N. Capitol Avenue. 5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE John Pollard, resident of 1718 Blair Street, stated that he is opposed to the marketing and selling of the Thelma Osteen Comfort Street Station. He stated that the Parks and Recreation Department did not realize that this property belonged to them until the lease expired for the North Lansing Community Association. He is a firm believer in the Charter that says no park, recreation, cemetery or water front property will be sold without the vote of the people whether the property is dedicated or designated. He stated that the Park Board on February 20, 2002 voted 3-2 and stated that the Park Board violated the Open Meeting Act because the Board denied the public the right to speak after two people completed their verbal comments. He stated that the Park Land Policy Resolution of December 10, 1979 created the 1981 Inventory List and that the Land Policy Act explains the development, disposal of and encroachment on park property. He stated that the object of any such sale or transfer should be with the purpose of improving the park system of the City of Lansing and not for the benefit of private development or interest. Such proposed disposal should be reviewed by the Park Board, Planning Board then with the recommendation to the Mayor to make sure it is at City Council before they act on it. He stated the key here was not for the benefit of private development and that this is his understanding of the Act 285 review. He believes the North Lansing Community Association should have the first right of refusal if the property is sold. This building was built in 1914-1916 and is one of the few Georgian-American architectural styles left in the City of Lansing. Between 1975 and 1979 the NLCA saved this building from demolition. The City PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 2, 2002, Page 11 of Lansing met with the NLCA and was able to have this building and other buildings listed on the national register. Then the City of Lansing met with the NLCA and applied for Federal CDBG money to renovate the building. In order for the NLCA to keep receiving Federal Grant money, they had to agree to assume all responsibility for costs of interior renovations to bring the building up to code requirements, utility costs, maintenance repairs, liability and insurance which have totaled over $50,000. He stated that the City of Lansing has not put any money into the building since the date of purchase. He also stated that people should be talking about the history of the building, the ordinances, Land Policy Acts and how the City could keep this building. The NLCA has kept this building. The Parks and Recreation Department cannot not afford to keep the building and there is no staff for the building. He stated that the NLCA should be given a long term lease and that if the property has to be sold, it should go to the NLCA or it will go for the vote of the people. Charlene Decker, resident of 2711 Pleasant Grove Road, stated that she had been invited to the Comfort Station Christmas party and that it was the most beautiful, simplistic and spiritual Christmas party. The gifts were purchased by the North Lansing Community Association members who have kept the building upgraded all these years. Those in the community in north Lansing contribute so much not in words but in actions. The residents have made the community live and breath and this is what the residents want. She stated that she has problems with some of the neighborhood associations decreeing things that not everyone in the community is able to vote on but one would think they had voted. She loves the City of Lansing and she doesn't feel that she belongs on the southwest side. She belongs to the whole of Lansing and so does everyone else. The Comfort Station is very important to her and she is concerned about whose hands it would be best kept. The NLCA has taken care of the building year after year and has nurtured it and no one in the City has ever commented on the work that had been done. The NLCA rehabilitated the building on their own without asking the City for money. If anyone has decency, honesty and integrity for Lansing, they would not take this building away from the NLCA because the organization has earned the right to keep the building. Brian Smith, resident of 1007 Woodbine, stated that he is the Chairman for the group, Citizens for a Better Lansing and that this group has the City in the Appeals Court over the Genesee Park case. He is also affiliated with the Home Town Happenings TV Show that is on every Wednesday night, cable access, Channel 16 from 10:30 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. He stated that tonight's Planning Board meeting will be on aired on the station April 10, 2002 with the deliberations regarding the Comfort Station issue. He urged the Planning Board to make the right choice whether it is giving the North Lansing Community Association a long PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 2, 2002, Page 12 term lease of the building or sell it to them for $1.00. He wants the Planning Board to reject the Act 285 Review because the Comfort Station property is a dedicated park property and it cannot be sold without a vote of the people. He was told by an Assistant City Attorney that the word "dedicated" means what the Lansing Codified Ordinances says it means and that these are found on the internet. He stated that "dedication" means the intentional appropriation of land by the owner to public use and that the property was intentionally appropriating the Comfort Station to public use. He read from the City Charter: "The most significant changes specifically delineate the rolls and the authority of the Mayor, the Council, the City Boards and City Departments assigned clear line through accountability and responsibility to each and establish safe guards which protects citizens against the misuse of authority." On the next page, he stated that the citation is very clear and that "this proposed Charter requires a vote by the people prior to the sale of any park, recreational, cemetery or river front property, all other property purchased or sold by the City with an assessed value $50, 000 or more will be subject to a public hearing prior to any purchase or sale." He stated that the Act 285 review is a blatant misuse of City authority and that under the Act 285 review process, he inquired about whether there are any parks in the City of Lansing that would require a vote of the Electorate before being sold. He stated that no one at the Parks Board could answer this question and that he would appreciate it if someone from the Planning Board could answer the question. He has followed this case since it originated in November 2001 and that he spent three hours in the library researching the history of the Comfort Station from 1913-1968. At the Parks Board meeting on February 20, 2002 there was a 3-2 vote for the review and that the facilitator, Mr. Wilbur Howard, did not participate in any votes until the motion was favorable for what Mr. Jemerson and Mayor's Assistant Bob Johnson. Everything that was helpful for the North Lansing Community Association was a 2-2 vote and Mr. Howard totally abstained from voting. The NLCA has had the building for 20 years with each lease being 5 years. He questioned why the Act 285 review now has to be done and why was it not questioned in 1987, 1992 and 1997 when the NLCA was given the 5 year leases. He stated that the NLCA is an example of an association that has been self sufficient, paid the bills for the property, and now are swept out on the streets. He encouraged the Planning Board Members to do the right thing, whether it is leasing the building to the NLCA for a long term lease or selling the property to them for $1.00. He asked the Planning Board members to send the right and correct message to Mr. Jemerson, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Howard and Mayor Hollister that the Planning Board does not believe in violating the City Charter. Belinda Fitzpatrick, resident of 224 S. Holmes Street, stated that there is a sense of community in the neighborhood surrounding the Comfort Station PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 2, 2002, Page 13 property. She also attended the Christmas Party that was held at the Comfort Station and that the spirit of the party and the energy of the building was wonderful. She stated that the building should be for community use and that it is a valuable asset to the community. She would prefer the City retain ownership of the property and that community property is best owned by the City and made available to the community. She stated that if the building would be sold, there should be a right of first refusal given to the North Lansing Community Association, and that the NLCA should have the right to purchase the property before it is offered to others. Considering the amount of investments put into the building by the NCLA and if the City were to sell the property, it would be unjust enrichment. "Unjust enrichment" is a legal term meaning somebody put so much work into something that they should be entitled to the fruit of their work, and if the City sold the property, the proceeds from the property should go to the NLCA to help them relocate. Even though there are other buildings, the Comfort Station holds a sentimental value to the NCLA. The NCLA is in love with and has a spiritual bond with the Comfort Station. The building holds a lot of emotional implications and to sell the property would tear apart the bond of the community. She stated that she did extensive research regarding Public Act 285. She gave an example of the case in Grand Rapids, Nash vs. Grand Rapids, where the people depended on state laws because the Charter did not address the issues. She stated that the state law says the City cannot sell a park without a vote of the Electorate, except for where the park is not required to be a park by the Master Plan. If the City relied on state law, a Master Plan review would be initiated pursuant to Public Act 285. The Charter is very similar in language to the State law. The beginning is the same stating, "A park property will not be sold without a vote of the people" but does not reflect a requirement by the Master Plan. She did extensive research at the City of Lansing Planning Office where she reviewed the Master Plan and a copy of the map. Under the Master Plan, she stated that there are no required parks in the City. Under the Public Act 285 Review, she concluded that there are no parks in the City that would require a vote of the Electorate before the property is sold because the City does not have a category specifying "required parks." The Master Plan does not list a requirement of"required parks." She encouraged the Board members not to sell the property and stated that if they choose to place the property for sale, have the property go before the vote of the Electorate. Edward Simmer, resident of 4245 W. Jolly Road, stated that he was the former Chairman of Citizens for a Better Lansing and that all the officers of the organization are against the sale of the Comfort Station. He was the individual PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 2, 2002, Page 14 who started a petition drive, after Ms. Osteen passed away, to have the Comfort Station named in her honor, and that over 500 people signed the petition before she was taken to her grave site. He stated that this is abomination and that this building contains a lot history. He was upset because the City wants to sell the property and he doesn't understand why. He was also upset because when he drove by the Comfort Station, the name on the building only reflected North Lansing and not the North Lansing Community Center. He stated that the same thing that happened to Genesee Park is happening to the Comfort Station and that he was the one who filed the law suit for Genesee Park and will file the law suit for the Comfort Station. He encouraged the Planning Board to do the right thing and sell the building to the North Lansing Community Association for$1.00. He stated that the NLCA should have the first opportunity. Sherry Shaw, resident of 403 Beaver Street, stated that she is the daughter of Ms. Thelma Osteen and that she has been a member of the North Lansing Community Association. She does not want to see the building sold and asked the Board to consider leasing the building to the NLCA. She stated that there are future plans to do more with the building and she questioned why the City wanted to do away with the rental property. The property will always be taken care of and with a lease, the City will also have the option to do something different with the building at a later time. Amy Hodgen, owner of a business at 416 N. Cedar Street, stated that she wanted to remind everyone who Thelma Osteen was, and that without Ms. Osteen, the City would not have the Dodge Mansion. When the Dodge Mansion was scheduled for demolition, Ms. Osteen single-handedly stood up and stopped the demolition and had to pay a $250.00 fine for mansion not being demolished. While Ms. Osteen was living, the Comfort Station flourished and provided different types of information about decisions, legal aid, etc. to the neighbors. She stated that the North Lansing Neighborhood Association is a beautiful group and that the building is also beautiful. She is not in favor of selling the Comfort Station. She stated that Ms. Osteen was a very sweet and powerful woman and that if she were still alive, she would not be happy with what is happening to the Comfort Station. Ms. Hodgen stated that all groups have disagreements and that the Comfort Station belongs to the NLCA. She indicated that the building is self-sufficient and that there are festivals and other events held at the Comfort Station. She stated that there are future plans for the building, with one of the plans including a club for the children. She hopes that the Board will remember Ms. Osteen and everything she had represented. She stated that the Comfort Station is one of the oldest buildings in the City, and that it would be a pity to sell the property for profit. She is in favor of the building being leased to the NLCA who will continue to maintain the building. She hopes that the Board will take the PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 2, 2002, Page 15 decision seriously because the Comfort Station is a beautiful building and the neighborhood does deserve to have it. Beverly Marsh, resident of 331 Harriet Avenue, stated that she is a daughter of Ms. Osteen and that from the beginning the Comfort Station was always taken care of. The North Lansing Community Association started the Thelma Osteen Youth Group but she is not sure if the youth will want to continue on in the future. She questioned the Board about a new lease for the NLCA and that the association has paid the taxes and maintained the building. She feels the property should go as a lease and not a sale, and that if the property is offered for sale, the NLCA should have the first right of refusal. She stated that the Board should consider all that her mother did for the organization and that the building still looks very nice. She stated that the building looks even better since it has been in the hands of the NLCA. She vowed that she would help take care of the problems that are within or without, whether in a court of law or done as human beings. The NLCA is about helping and caring for the community and the neighborhood. She stated that she will not bend and do things wrong to make someone happy and that the NLCA will go by rules and bylaws. There will not be any more secret meetings and as long as there is breath in her, she will be just like her mother. She wants peace and unity at the Comfort Station and everyone working towards what her mother had built, an association to help the people. She hopes the Board will take all this into consideration and that she would like to see the NLCA and their belongings back at the Comfort Station and fully functional. Becky Weck, resident of 213 Douglas Avenue, stated that she is a daughter of Ms. Osteen. She remembered attending the North Lansing Community Association meetings with her dad when her mother was alive and that her mother fought for what she thought was right. Her mother wanted to see the north end of Lansing become a better place. She stated that she was at the Comfort Station earlier. All the NLCA's belongings are out of the building, and the association's name had been taken off the building. The NLCA has no place to hold their meetings and that the building had been used in the past for dinners, funerals, meetings, and Christmas parties which included Christmas gifts for the less fortunate children. She wants the property referred to as the Thelma Osteen Comfort Station as it was dedicated to her mother in her honor. She remembered her mother walking the streets and pounding on doors. She stated that the Comfort Station is a gathering place for the community in the north end of the City and that the building should be kept in tact. She was frustrated because the NLCA had to hold their meeting outside the building on the streets. PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 2, 2002, Page 16 Beverly Miller, resident of 413 Pearl Street, stated that the North Lansing Community Association would like to purchase the property for a nominal sum of $1.00 and that the NLCA did meet the requirements for the 1980 Federal Grant that was secured to help rehabilitate the property. The NLCA agreed to pay all the costs that were not covered by the Federal Grant to bring the building up to code, and they paid for all interior renovations. From 1980 to present, the property has increased in value from $6,000 to $75, 000 according the City's survey. Every lease the NLCA has had with the City stated that the NCLA is to be responsible and pay all the utilities, maintenance, repairs and insurance. The NLCA has paid all the expenses without the help of grant and city subsidy monies. The NLCA is a volunteer group with no paid staff. Every lease has also stated that the property is intended to be cost free to the City of Lansing and to her knowledge, the City has expended no funds. She stated that Mr. Emil Winnicker (City of Lansing, Development Office ) explained to Ms. Miller that over the last 22 years, $3,000 had been spent on the building while the NLCA had leased the property. The NLCA occupied, maintained and improved this property from 1980 to March 2002 and on March 7, 2002, received a notice stating they had to find new space for their personal property and turn in all keys by March 28, 2002. There was misinformation about the NLCA not having to vacate the building and at a Committee of the Whole meeting on March 7, 2002 where Mr. Johnson, Chief of Staff, clearly stated that the NLCA had to move all their personal property and turn in the keys by March 28, 2002. She questioned the Board about the sale of the building. Mr. Ruff stated this is just an evaluation as to whether or not to sell the property and that this is not a decision to put the property up for sale. Mr. Ruff also stated that this is the information gathering. Ms. Miller stated that once the building is offered for sale and if the Board's recommendations go to the City Council, the City Council has to have a 2/3 vote in order to sell the property. The vote will not reflect where the building will go or whether or not the NLCA will be able to acquire the property. She questioned whether the property would be acquired by the Parks Department and if so, would the Parks Department lease the property to NLCA. She stated that if the building was going to be leased, it would have been leased to the NLCA by now. She stated that the Board's recommendations would make the difference as to whether or not the NLCA would be able to acquire the property. Christine Timmon, resident of 339 E. St. Joseph Apt. #3, stated that she has attended most of the meetings regarding the Comfort Station and that the North Lansing Community Association has moved all their belongings out of the building. She feels the City has its own plan for the property and that there is nothing anyone can do or say that will stop the City from doing what they want to do. She suggested to the citizens of Lansing to do the best they can and not spend a whole lot of money in attorney fees because once they have paid the PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 2, 2002, Page 17 fees they have already lost. She stated that these little issues can be handled and that it would only cost a person $30 to file a case in Circuit Court. Then the case would be held up for 3-5 years in court. She does not foresee the City returning the property to the NLCA and that there are a lot of blighted buildings in the City. She stated that the City may have to help the NLCA rehabilitate an old building if the NLCA could put out a certain amount of money. Ben Genns, resident of 1401 Center Street, stated that he has lived at this address his whole life and that he had grown up with the North Lansing Community Association in this area. Some of his earliest memories of Christmas were parties at the Comfort Station. On Monday, April 1, 2002, he was with his dad helping to move the last of the NLCA's belongings out of the Comfort Station. Looking at the empty hall, he remembered people visiting with one another and enjoying themselves not realizing that later they would leave and never see each other again. He stated that the NLCA has done more for this area than anyone else and that even though they did not produce numbers, the NLCA had an affect on the community. He asked the Board to do the NLCA a favor and give them the property. Seeing no one else wishing to address the Board, Mr. Frederick closed the public comment period. 6. RECESS was taken by the Board. 7. BUSINESS SESSION Mr. Frederick stated for the record that Ms. Foster arrived at 7:10 p.m. after role was taken and that she will be present for the duration of the meeting. A. Ms. Keene moved; seconded by Mr. Smith to approve the minutes of March 19, 2002 without corrections. On a voice vote, motion carried (6-0), the minutes of March 19, 2002 were APPROVED. B. Committee Reports 1. ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE, Mr. Ruge, Chair Next meeting, Wednesday, April 10, 2002 at 4:00 p.m. 316 N. Capitol Ave., Department Conference Room. PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 2, 2002, Page 18 2. URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, Ms. Patrick, Chair a. Act-27-2001, 313 E. Grand River Ave., Comfort Station, Market for Sale This is a request to consider whether the City should market the property for sale, or retain ownership. It is not to consider a specific offer to purchase the building. The application itself was submitted by the Development Office on behalf of the City. This Act 285 Review is a fact-finding report and investigation to help determine whether or not the City should continue owning the building. Information was gathered from the various agencies and departments of the City to determine any possible interest in the structure and comments from the public at the public hearing held by the Planning Board. Since the lease of the building by NLCA expired on 12-31-01, the Department of Parks and Recreation has requested that the Act 285 Review be conducted to market the property for sale and is recommending that the City dispose of the property by getting it out of public ownership. The property is zoned "F-1" Commercial Zoning District which allows for a variety of uses, including office and commercial use. A "private club, fraternal organization or lodge hall" is also included in the various "principal uses" permitted in the zoning district. The types of uses that are possible in the "F-1" District are attached. The building is located on a relatively small parcel with the building taking up most of the property. On-site parking is therefore not available. A public alley exists along the north side of the building. A public parking lot, available at Grand River and Turner Street, provides plenty of parking for this commercial district. The site includes equipment behind the Comfort Station which is used under license by Sharp Technology for a radio system and antennae to control the storm water system for that area. This license for such equipment nominal fee will have to continue on with any possible sale of this property. The two-story building is located within the North Lansing Historic Commercial District on the National Register of Historic Places. Such a designation does not protect the PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 2, 2002, Page 19 building from demolition, but does afford it some tax incentives for rehabilitation through preservation tax credits. A public hearing was held by the Lansing Planning Board on 11/20/01 at which eleven members of the public spoke. The Parks Board took its action on 2/20/02 "to support the (Parks & Rec) staff's recommendation to continue to proceed with the Department of Planning and Neighborhood Development's Act 285 review for the sale of the Comfort Station." Staff recommends approval of Act-27-01, the marketing for sale of the Comfort Station at 313 E. Grand River Avenue, zoned "F-1" Commercial with the understanding that: a. The building be sold to community group or groups for broad based community use, reserving historic facade easements in perpetuity, and a reverter clause to ensure that community use will continue with the building. b. The City should manage the property for community use until time of sale. C. The license for Sharp Technologies' equipment will need to be accommodated in any transaction regarding the property. Staff also suggests that the name of the building remain as "Thelma Joyce Osteen Comfort Station" as designated by City Council Resolution. In Committee it was moved, seconded and carried unanimously (3-0) to recommend approval of Act-27-01, 313 E. Grand River Ave., Comfort Station, Market for Sale. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows: Ms. Patrick made a motion, seconded by Ms. Keene to recommend approval of Act-27-01, 313 E. Grand River Ave., Comfort Station, Market for Sale with conditions. PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 2, 2002, Page 20 There was a general discussion regarding the Comfort Station being open for public use and the recommendation of a possible reverter clause to ensure that community use occurs with the conditions thereunder. Mr. Ruge stated that the North Lansing Community Association managed and occupied the Comfort Station for more than 20 years and questioned why there was no recommendation to sell the property to the NLCA for their continued use. There was a general discussion regarding the possible sale of the building and the community use of the building. There was a general discussion regarding the City's liability for the Comfort Station. Mr. Phil Dorland, Deputy Director of Parks and Recreation, gave a brief overview of which parks are staffed. He stated that the director of Parks and Recreation is taking the position that he does not want to pull the Comfort Station back into the City's budgetary process and have to maintain or provide paid staff for the building. Ms. Foster inquired about the leasing of park property, and the liability issue. There was a general discussion about the City's involvement in maintaining the Comfort Station. A general discussion ensued about the distribution of the City's community centers and if there was a center located near the Comfort Station to help fulfill the needs of the community. Mr. Dorland stated that Gyer Park and the Turner-Dodge house are nearby. Mr. Ruge inquired about why the Parks and Recreation Department wants to divest themselves of the Comfort Station property. He would feel more comfortable if the City would have a plan in place to keep the property for community use before action would be taken by the Board. Ms. Foster asked if the liability and the burden of the Comfort Station were lifted off the City, would the Committee feel the same. Mr. Smith felt that as a Board they were being asked to provide an instrument for what appears to him to be, on a personal level, a political issue. He stated that he doesn't know all the history except for what was said tonight. The facts that were presented to the Board appear to be a landlord/tenant type of situation. The lease has expired and the landlord has chosen not to renew the lease, which is the landlord's prerogative. Notwithstanding the efforts that the North Lansing Community Association has put into the Comfort Station and without having detailed information about what really and truly is motivating this request, the Board can only act based on the facts presented to the Board. From a legal point of view, if the City does not want to renew the lease, there is not a law that forces the City to renew the lease. Morally, maybe there is an obligation. PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 2, 2002, Page 21 Ms. Keene stated that based on the fact that the Board does have additional information tonight which was not presented at the Committee meeting, and that because a number of Board members have questions, she moves to table Act-27-01. Ms. Keene made a motion, seconded by Mr. Ruge to table Act-27-01, 313 E. Grand River Ave., Comfort Station, Market for Sale. On a voice vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. TABLED. b. Act-6-2002, SE Corner of Allegan & Townsend, Removal of Two BWL Easements The applicant, Boji Group L.L.C., requests that the City vacate two BWL easements to facilitate a proposed new office building and parking deck project. The two easements were for electric, water and steam facilities serving the Accident Fund of Michigan at 232 S. Capitol Avenue and former YWCA building at 217 Townsend Street (see attached graphics for specific locations). The YWCA was established in 1927. The building was demolished in December 2000. An Act 285 is required to vacate the easements for the parcels described in the attachments, with final action by City Council. According to Public Service, the vacation of the two BWL easements will have no impact on their services. City Council held a public hearing on April 16, 2001 for a Special Land Use Permit (SLU-2-01) to construct an off- street parking lot at 217 Townsend Street in the "G-1" Business District. SLU-2-01 was approved. The steam line in the ROW would interfere with a zero lot line (permitted in the "G-1" Business District). The location of the proposed vacations of the two BWL easements will not affect service by other utilities. The character of the area and future land use designation is a mixture of commercial, office and parking use and will not PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 2, 2002, Page 22 change as a result of this proposal. No significant impact on vehicular or pedestrian circulation is anticipated. Also, there will be no anticipated impact on the environment associated with the vacations of the two BWL easements. The location, character and extent are reasonable. Staff recommends approval of Act-6-02, with the vacations of the BWL easements at the SE corner of Allegan & Townsend Streets, contingent upon approval by resolution(s) of the Board of Water and Light Commissioners. In Committee it was moved, seconded and carried unanimously (3-0) to recommend approval of Act-6-02, SE Corner of Allegan & Townsend, Removal of Two BWL Easements. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows: Ms. Patrick made a motion, seconded by Ms. Keene to recommend approval of Act-6-2002, SE Corner of Allegan & Townsend, Removal of Two BWL Easements. Frederick . . Ave Foster. . . Ave Keene . .Ave Patrick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye Smith. . .Ave Ruge . .Aye On a Roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. Next meeting, Tuesday, April 23, 2002, at 6:00 p.m. Council Chambers, 10'h Floor, City Hall, 124 W. Michigan Ave. 3. Committee of the Whole - None. 4. Executive Committee - None. PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 2, 2002, Page 23 C. REPORT FROM PLANNING MANAGER 1. Commissioner Training Workshops for the Historic District Commission. 2. On April 16, 2002 there will be a hearing for consideration of the Wolverine Pipe Line application, referred to the Planning Board by the City Council. The Board chose to have a special meeting at 7:00 p.m. on April 23, 2002 after the 6:00 p.m. Urban Development Committee meeting. D. PENDING ITEMS (future action required) 1. Zonina and Ordinance Committee a. - -98, 1223 N.Tu—r—n—e—FSt., "H"Light Industrial District to"G-1" Business District Tabled February 11 1998)) b. -5-98,401-407 E. brand fiver,"F"Commercial District to"G-1" Business District Tabled June 10, 1998) C. Z-8-200 , 3901 S. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd.,"F"Commercial to"H"Light Industrial District(Tabled June 14, 2000) d. Z-15-2000, 301 W. Lenawee Street, Professional Office to"G-1"Business District(Tabled January 17,2001 e. P-1-2001,Tentative Preliminary lat,Wexford Woods (Tabled June 13, May 9, 2001) f. PRD-2-01,"Crystal Woods", Planned Residential Neighborhood (Tabled August 15, 2001) g. SLU-6-0 , 517-519 E. Grand River Ave., Church in"F-1"Commercial District (Tabled November 14,2001) h. SLU-8-01, 3000 W. Miller Road,Additional Parking for an Existing Church (Tabled November 14,2001) i. SLU-1-2002 1400 Block,W. Jolly Road, Special Land Use Permit- New Church 2. Urban Development committee a. Act-9-2000,201 E. Grand River Avenue, Proj. Sign Over ROW (Tabled June 27, 2000) b. Act-27-01, 313 E. Grand River Ave. (Comfort Station), Market for Sale (Tabled November 27,2001) C. Act-2-02, Lansing Housing Commission Property, 310 Seymour,Acquisition for public purposes (Tabled February 26, 2002) 3. Committee of the Whole 4. Planninq Board 8. NEW BUSINESS 9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON 10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS Ms. Foster inquired about tabling the Comfort Station and stated that she would like to visit the property. Mr. Ruff stated the building is locked and the keys are with the Parks and Recreation Department. Mr. Ruge inquired about what criteria the Commission used in their ruling on the denial of the pipeline through Meridian Township. Mr. Ruff stated that he has a PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 2, 2002, Page 24 copy of the Public Service Commission's staff report for the pipeline, and that the report was later withdrawn. Mr. Ruff had requested information regarding the discussion of the withdrawal but was denied the information. He is now exploring other options for obtaining the information. 11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS 12. ADJOURNMENT - Meeting was adjourned at 10:01 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James A. Ruff, Secretary, Planning Board PB Minutes.040202.wpd OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES CITY OF LANSING POLICE & FIRE RETIREMENT SYSTEM Regular Meeting May 14, 2002 Council Conference Room Tuesday, 8:30 a.m. 10th Floor City Hall Lansing, MI The Board met in regular session and was called to order at 8:50 a.m. Present: Trustees Cochran, Hollister, Johnson, Luzynski, Rhode - 5 Absent: Trustees Holliday and Lankheet Others: Gary Gustafson, Doug Rubley, Finance Department; Jack Jordan, Law Department It was moved by Trustee Hollister and supported by Trustee Cochran to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of April 16, 2002. Adopted by the following vote: Unanimously. The Secretary reported: 15 (Fire) new member(s) 0 reinstatement(s), 2 refund(s) 0 transfers, 1 retired. Total active membership: 492. Refunds made since the last regular meeting amounted to 4,399.37. Retirement allowances paid for the month of April 2002 amounted to $1,328,087.72. 1 death. Total retirement checks printed for the P&F System: 568. Total retirement checks printed for all systems: 1,223. Domestic relations orders received: 0. Domestic relations orders pending: 1. Eligible domestic relations orders certified: . It was moved by Trustee Hollister and supported by Trustee Rhode to approve the 2002 Investment Policy. It was Approved Unanimously Mr. Rubley handed out the Investment Report for April. The meeting adjourned at 9:35 a.m. I \, Minut approved onvUi' e 2d 2ooZ RobertW. Swans on, Secretary Police & Fire Retirement System Paul Luzynski, irp s n Draft to Clerk April 26,2002 Approved May 21,2002 To Clerk May 23,2002 Minutes of the Regular Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD 7:00 p.m., Tenth Floor, Council Chambers Lansing City Hall Tuesday, April 16, 2002 1. OPENING SESSION The meeting was called to order at 7:06 p.m. by Chairman Frederick. A. Roll call. Present: Frederick, Foster, Keene, Patrick, Smith, Ruge. B. Staff Attending: Ruff, Rieske, Hodges. C. Excused absence: Ms. Cordill. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA It was moved by Mr. Smith, supported by Ms. Keene to approve the revised agenda. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (5-0). 3. COMMUNICATIONS A. Email from Alisande Henry stating Mayor Hollister would not be able to attend the Planning Board meeting. B. Letter from Gilbert and Rebecca Ledesma opposing the Wolverine Pipeline. C. Letter from Kathy "K.P." Pelleran opposing the Wolverine Pipeline. D. Email from Raymond Hill regarding a Wolverine Pipe Line spill in June of 2000. Mr. Frederick stated for the record that Mr. Ruge arrived at 7:10 p.m. after role was taken and that he will be present for the duration of the meeting. Ms. Patrick mentioned an informal communication from the Old Everett Neighborhood Organization that takes the position of opposition for the Wolverine Pipeline and that the organization could not send a representative because of meeting conflicts. 4. HEARINGS A. Act-7-2002, Gasoline Pipeline in 1-96 Right-of-Way, Wolverine Pipe Line Company PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 16, 2002, Page 2 Wolverine Pipe Line Co. is requesting to locate a gasoline pipe line in the 1-96 right of way in the City of Lansing. The purpose of the pipeline is for the transportation of gasoline products. Since such products are highly toxic and flammable, a break in the pipeline could result in the release of a large volume of toxic liquid. Although a significant leak may be relatively remote, such situations do occur. The potential consequences of a pipeline break could be of such magnitude that their placement in proximity to developed lands and other high consequence areas would be inconsistent with sound planning practices and the policies advanced in the City's comprehensive plans. Correspondingly, location considerations for such a request involve the nature and function of neighboring land uses, the potential consequences of a pipeline on these uses, and the available alternatives to this location. The neighboring land uses along the route are largely developed, consisting of residential developments of varying density, as well as commercial and office uses. Much of the land that remains undeveloped reflects areas of environmental significance and sensitive areas that are critical to the regions supply of drinking water. The proposed route goes through the 'Mason Esker', the longest underground glacial river bed in Michigan. This esker is the principle source drinking water for the region and contaminants run very quickly through such deposits. Drinking water concerns also include: the route cutting across established well head protection zones, being in proximity to the Board of Water and Light's Wise Road Conditioning Plant, including a 5 million gallon reservoir of drinking water which represents one third of the water supply capacity for the region; 10 of BWL production wells are within a quarter-mile of the pipeline route and another 13 within the well head protection area that could be impacted by the route. Continuation of the existing development pattern is supported by the City's Comprehensive Plans. The plans do not recognize or recommend the 1-96 r/w as a utility corridor. Much of the area surrounding the Lansing urbanized area remains undeveloped, offering ample opportunities for locating the pipeline through undeveloped areas. Two routes were identified by a real estate appraiser, Charles Green. Four alternates were considered acceptable by the Public Service Commission. Until all reasonable alternatives have been exhausted the public's safety and welfare can be protected to the City's satisfaction, the location proposed for the pipeline is considered to be incompatible with the existing land use pattern, the future pattern being advance in the Comprehensive Plans, and sound planning practices in general. PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 16, 2002, Page 3 With respect to character, the proposed route is in close proximity to a range of developments and other high consequence areas. It also is a route reflecting areas of high minority concentrations. The disproportionate placement of minorities at risk to a potential environmental hazard threat raises concerns of environment justice. Given the composition of the adjoining land uses and population, the request is considered to be inconsistent with the general character of the neighboring area. With respect to the 'extent' of the proposal, the size and design of the pipeline would appear consistent with its intended use and a facility of lessor size would not result in a disproportionate reduction in it's potential impacts. Based on the findings detailed in sections above, the proposal is considered inconsistent with the location and character of the surrounding area, the land use pattern being advanced in the comprehensive plans, and sound planning practices. It is, therefore, suggested that the Planning Board recommend that the request be denied. John Hodges gave a brief overview. Mr. Ruff gave a brief clarification regarding the area of the pipeline that the Board is reviewing and the information provided by Wolverine Pipeline. Leslie Cole, Vice President and General Manager Wolverine Pipe Line, Portage, Michigan. As Mr. Ruff described, they have made application with the Michigan Public Service Commission to own, operate and maintain a pipeline. A portion of that pipeline route that they have asked for a permit does cross through the City of Lansing. It is a very long pipeline. Some of the shortest distances that cross through any municipality is through the City of Lansing. They have asked that the route be along interstate 96 as it goes around the South and West sides of Lansing. In the MPSC Staff's testimony, as you will find evidence in the records. They say that there is no such thing as a perfect pipeline route, but that this particular route is as good as it gets. The reason that it is as good as it gets because it is a freeway corridor. It is a transportation corridor. A pipeline is a transportation facility. The corridor is also isolated and fenced. It has minimal easements in it and contractors that do work within the corridor must contact MDOT for permission to do work in that right of way. Because it is a isolated, fenced and controlled corridor and because contractors must have MDOT's permission, it reduces the likelihood of third party damage, which is the leading cost of pipeline failures. The route utilizes existing highway corridors for almost the entire length. This in turn minimizes impacts to residences and businesses. Environmental damage will be minimized because the areas PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 16, 2002, Page 4 along the 1-96 right of way have previously been disturbed in order to accommodate the highway itself. Using the highway right of way eliminates the need to take land away from other uses. The proposed pipeline will be constructed with state of the art technology. Industry experts as well as the Office of Pipeline Safety have determined that the pipeline will be constructed and operated in a safe manner. The presence of a pipeline will not negatively inhibit development, particularly because the pipeline will be located in a highway right of way where development will not be occurring. Also, Meridian Township and East Lansing are a perfect example of how a community can flourish even with the presence of a pipeline. Experts, including the City of Lansing's, Mr. Hansel, have concluded that in the unlikely event of a pipeline incident, the City's water supply would not be affected. He would appreciate the Board's consideration in recommending that the City of Lansing grant its consent to this project and he would like to answer any questions. Mr. Ruge asked why they withdrew their application to have the pipeline follow its original route? Mr. Cole said the original route of the pipeline, which is 65 years old, has suffered from what they would consider to be encroachments. That is basically development within a very close proximity to the pipeline. Because of the encroachments, which were schools, apartment buildings, residential property, business property, a post office, the Meridian Mall. Because of the encroachment of areas like this, the Michigan Public Service Commission could not recommend that old route as a good location for a new route. Looking at these encroachments and the difficulty that would exist in constructing the new pipeline within that highly congested route and looking at the fact that there is not a highly congested area along 1-96 as it goes south and west of Lansing. Wolverine Pipeline Company decided that it would be better to withdraw the portion of their application that was north of 1-96 all the way up to St. Johns Township and reapply for a permit utilizing the 1-96 corridor. Mr. Ruge said that there were more residences and businesses by the pipeline there than if it went through on 1-96. Mr. Cole said that there is an order of magnitude greater number of residential homes, apartment complexes and business development along that existing corridor than there will be along the 1-96 corridor. Mr. Ruge asked what it meant when he said in order of magnitude? Mr. Cole said what it means is, there were locations where the pipeline would have run down the middle of a residential street. There were three PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 16, 2002, Page 5 locations where the pipeline would run in between the buildings of apartment complexes. There were two schools where the pipeline would have crossed the school grounds and in one of those, the current pipeline crosses underneath the schools playground equipment. It runs around the perimeter drive of the Meridian Mall. It runs through the parking lot of the Meridian Post Office. They would actually need pictures of that current route to get a good understanding of what he is talking about. With regard to distances from residential property to the pipeline, the distances that they will find along the 1-96 proposed route are much greater than the majority of the distances that they would have found along the route as it went through Okemos, Meridian and East Lansing. Mr. Ruge asked if it was true that despite the fact that the pipeline was there they decided to build their businesses and houses next to it. Mr. Cole said that is true which is another good reason for using 1-96. Because business development, residential development, any type of development other than transportation infrastructure will not be allowed in that corridor. Ms. Keene asked who will benefit as a result of the placement of the pipeline through the City of Lansing? Mr. Cole said in this particular area the City of Lansing is the biggest beneficiary, but also the central Michigan area is another big beneficiary of this pipeline system. Towns like Mt. Pleasant, Bay City, Midland, Saginaw and all of the 29 counties that make up the central Michigan area will be beneficiaries of the pipeline. Ms. Keene said when you say the City of Lansing, you are including Meridian Township and all the local here? Mr. Cole said yes, the distribution terminal that currently services the greater Lansing area, which is several counties in radius around that distribution terminal is located off the Grand River Avenue to the north and west side of the City of Lansing, west of the City's airport. That is where this current pipeline will end and will connect to an existing pipeline that then carries product to a distribution terminal in Bay City. The two distribution terminals are what will serve central Michigan. So, they can say that Meridian Township is benefitted, East Lansing is benefitted, Okemos is benefitted, Delta Township is benefitted, but the City of Lansing has the largest number of residences in this area in one municipal unit so he would say that the City of Lansing is as big a beneficiary of anyone in the area of Lansing proper. PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 16, 2002, Page 6 Ms. Keene said he answered her question, but she wanted to clarify that while Lansing will benefit, it is also in her view carrying a burden for the complete mid Michigan area. Mr. Cole said he would not agree that it would be carrying the burden. When they look at the number of miles that the pipeline traverses through communities in this area, the fewest number of miles in any municipality with the exception of probably Watertown Township is Lansing itself. Ms. Keene asked if he is saying that Meridian Township and Okemos areas have more pipeline going through them than what will run through the City of Lansing? Mr. Cole said no, he is saying that the townships that border interstate 96 as it goes south and west of Lansing are the townships that will be crossed by the pipeline. They are the townships that are crossed by the Interstate highway and if they measure the distance that the pipeline or the highway traverses through those townships, they will find that the distance is longer than the distance that passes through Lansing. Ms. Keene said what about those townships east of Lansing, such as Meridan? Mr. Cole said there are townships west that also benefit and it is not passing through the townships west or east. It goes around the south and west edge of Lansing. It can benefit people in Charlotte, but it does not cross through Charlotte. Ms. Keene said her concern is that the citizens of Lansing appear to be feeling that the City of Lansing is being asked to assume the burden of having this pipeline, when all these other locations, such as Meridian Township are going to have only the benefit, while they carry the burden. That is a concern that she has. Mr. Cole said in his view she does not have to be concerned about that because it is not a burden. It crosses through the City of Lansing, while in the corridor of an Interstate highway so it does not impact anybody's private property or any property that the City of Lansing currently zones for other uses. Ms. Keene said what she is talking about the burden, she is thinking about things that the anxiety, for example, that the residents will suffer because they are more closely exposed to the possibility of something happening like what occurred down in Blackman Township. That is what she is talking about. The thing that Meridian Township will avoid. PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 16, 2002, Page 7 Mr. Cole said they all mentioned Mr. Hill who lives in Blackman Township. Also contained in that record is testimony from the Blackman Township Supervisor who testified for the MPSC that Wolverine Pipeline Company is a very good corporate citizen and it fully cooperates with all government agencies, all interested parties in its response to incidents. While they don't plan to have incidents, they stay ready to respond to incidents so that people who do live near the pipeline don't have to be burdened with worry of what might happen because they are fully capable of working any response activity to the point that no one living near the pipeline is in danger because of any incident that the pipeline could possibly have. If they would also remember the fact that this is a brand new pipeline and so the likelihood it having an incident is very remote when they compare it to a pipeline that was built in 1953 like the one through Blackman Township. Also understand the current regulatory structure in regard to pipelines they would know that regulations were just passed that requires pipeline companies to have an integrity management program. This program will severely lessen the likelihood of any incident with regard to a brand new constructed pipeline built in the year 2002. Ms. Keene asked why they withdrew the proposal in Meridian Township. How did that come about? Mr. Cole said in the original permit application they asked for a route from Jackson, Blackman Township, to Stockridge Township and from Stockridge Township to St. Johns Township. The route from Jackson to Stockbridge was a new route, one where they did not currently have a pipeline. The route from Stockbridge to St. Johns was following the existing pipeline. They had just recently purchased that pipeline. The easements associated with the ownership of the pipeline is one of the most valuable assets associated with owning the pipeline. Since they had just purchased it, they elected to attempt to use that newly acquired asset by laying a brand new pipeline next to the old pipeline to replace the old pipeline. The administrative law judge that was hearing that particular case recommended to the Michigan Public Service Commission that they deny the permit. Prior to the Michigan Public Service Commission actually hearing the case, they withdrew the portion that was a concern to the administrative law judge and that was the portion that existed between 1-96 and 1-69. As a result of withdrawing that piece they were granted a permit for the piece from Blackman Township, the pipeline has been constructed, and they were granted the permit for the piece from Stockbridge to 1-96. That particular part of the line has not been constructed because they also agreed with the MPSC Staff that they would not construct it until they had a completed route to the Marathon Ashland Petroleum Terminal on the west side of Lansing. So, what they have today is a 20 mile new pipeline with some refurbished tanks at PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 16, 2002, Page 8 Stockbridge and a new pump station in Stockbridge that is continuing to pump gasoline down a 65 year old pipeline. Ms. Foster said continuing with that question, why where they going to reject that permit. Mr. Cole said because of the highly congested nature of Okemos, Meridian and East Lansing. The route through that area is much more highly congested than anything along 1-96. Plus going through that highly congested area they would have done so by easement, which means that they would not have the protection afforded by being in a corridor like 1-96 where excavation work is limited. Mr. Ruge asked if they were to refurbish the old 65 year old pipeline, the same size pipe as it is, could they continue to use their current easement? Mr. Cole said they could continue to use their current pipeline as it is. It's current operating pressure is 800 psi and they can not refurbish it to the point where they can raise the operating pressure to a level necessary to meet the demands of central Michigan because the permit that enabled that pipeline to be built does not allow it to be modified in that manner. Mr. Ruge said they can pump the same amount of gas through that line, but they could not pump any more. Mr. Cole said approximately half of what they are trying to replace. Mr. Ruge said should they approve their request, would they be willing to hire a private consultant along with the City to monitor the work on the pipeline in general? Mr. Cole said Wolverine Pipeline inspects the construction of a pipeline facility. The Office of Pipeline Safety also inspects the construction of a pipeline such as this. The Office of Pipeline Safety might not be there daily. If the City of Lansing feels that it would be necessary in order to grant consent for the project that it have a full time inspector to watch the construction activities that occurred within the City of Lansing, Wolverine Pipeline would be happy to accommodate that and would be happy to work with the City of Lansing so that they could find reputable persons to do that work that were not in any way affiliated with Wolverine Pipeline. Mr. Ruge said he thinks that one of the big concerns is not just the construction but ongoing inspections to ensure that there is not some kind of a leak, especially that goes on undetected. PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 16, 2002, Page 9 Mr. Cole said that they have agreed to put in 6 or 7 valves along this corridor as it comes into 1-96 and crosses around the city. The purpose of those 6 valves is to drastically reduce any amount of gasoline that could leak from the pipeline in the event there was an incident with the pipeline. Those 6 valves will be remotely operated that will be capable of being manually operated on site and in addition to the valves they are planning to install pressure and temperature sensors at each location so that every time the pipeline is shut down, they can close those valves using the pressure and temperature sensors to run a pressure test during that down time. If they combine that with cathodic protection and that they run an internal inspection tool every 5 years, it would be almost impossible for a leak to develop that they could not detect prior to the leak losing enough gasoline to impact any of the city's water wells. Mr. Ruge said he is saying it is not necessary for some outside person to... Mr. Cole said he is just describing what they would do. If they look at what is absolutely necessary, what he described as overkill, but they are doing this to make people understand that they plan to operate a safe pipeline and they don't have to be afraid of it. If the City of Lansing would like to review such inspections on a periodic basis they would be happy to allow to do so. Mr. Smith said Mr. Cole earlier referenced a Mr. Hensel from the Board of Water and Light. To be clear is he referring to the Mr. Hensel who is the geologist from Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Mr. Cole said he referred to him as an expert witness for the City of Lansing, which is what he was. Mr. Smith said the reason he asks is because first off on the Executive Summary that was presented to the MPSC on page 50 is a statement that says potential long term impacts from larger petroleum spills may occur due to valve or pipeline failures during pipe operations. So, this is something that they anticipate happening? Mr. Cole said no they do not anticipate it. Mr. Smith said it does say in the report that is even foreseeable. Remote though it might be it does use the word foreseeable. Mr. Hensel, there is a statement they have from the Board of Water and Light, has confirmed that the area through which the pipeline is proposed. . . It says, "in addition the proposed pipeline route passes through their southwest wellfield, the Stifel Well Field Wellhead Protection Area that has no PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 16, 2002, Page 10 protective layer at all." So, were there to be a leak, whether it was catastrophic leak or minor there is very little there to prevent it from going into the aquifer and possibly contaminating the water supply of which much of the water for Lansing does then come from underground water. From the Saginaw Aquifer. So what he is wondering now is even though he has assured them that it would be safe, there are some pretty frightening statistics here. For example it says for a non-catastrophic failure such as an undetected leak is an even greater concern than a sudden catastrophic line failure. Any automated control system has limited sensitivity to leaks. With a flow volume of 3.1 million gallons, nearly .01 of 1% of the daily flow would allow 310 gallons of gasoline a day to enter the ground. If the leak remained undetected for just a month almost 10,000 gallons would be lost. The first indication of the leak would likely be when contaminants would be measured in the Board of Water and Light drinking water wells. So, how do they allay their fear of that? Mr. Cole said first of that the Stifel Well Field is over a mile away and he is sure that they could consult with any geologist and find out that it takes literally decades for gasoline to travel through the ground for a mile. What he just described about the valves and the temperature and pressure transmitters is so that they have the opportunity to make sure that there is no undetectable leaks. Also, if they would recall the area in which they are proposing to build this pipeline, they would remember that in many, many months of the year, the ground is wet and they simply can not leak 300 gallons of gasoline into the ground that is wet and not have that gasoline surface. So, the public is one safeguard against the city's waterwells because if it does surface it will be reported. If it is reported they will eliminate the leak and clean up the ground. They will remediate the location and it will not pose a threat to the city's waterwells. The current 65 year old pipeline that runs between 1-96 and 1-69 has existed there for 65 years and although they did not own it for that period of time and reviewing the records that they have from the prior owners, they do not find that it has leaked within that corridor and that corridor is also a corridor that could put gasoline in the same aquifer that they referred to. So, simply forcing them to use the old pipeline is not a way to resolve the exposure of the aquifer to gasoline contamination if they were the type of company that would allow that to happen. Mr. Smith asked how they do determine an underground leak? Mr. Cole said they conduct an over and short analysis of the line while it is running measuring what goes in one end versus what comes out of the other end. This is computerized and very accurate. Then when they close a pipeline they leave pressure on a pipeline. In this case there would be 375 to 500 pounds of pressure left on the pipeline. If in the normal course of business they shut down a pipeline, which occurs routinely, while it is PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 16, 2002, Page 11 shut down with that pressure on it, if they close those 6 or 7 valves they have segmented the pipeline into very small increments and they can measure the pressure drop and if there is one, they investigate there was a pressure drop. Is it due to a valve leaking into the tank at Lansing terminal or is it due to the gasoline leaking from the pipeline somewhere. His point is this, if they conduct 24 hour remote surveillance of the operation of the pipeline and then they in effect pressure test it every time they shut down, there will not be any leaks occurring on the pipeline that will be of a magnitude that could readily place gasoline into the City of Lansing's drinking water. Also, he is not sure that they need to be as concerned about that possibility as they seem to be because currently there has been over 112 locations within the City of Lansing where underground storage tanks have leaked and none of those has resulted in the contamination of the city's water aquifer. Mr. Smith said from the time that there was a pressure variance and they have a potential leak, what kind of a time frame would they be talking about and the secondary question to that, are there other things that could give a false reading? In other words, would there be other reasons that there would be pressure fluctuation that might not be a leak, that may lead them to assume that they did not have a leak but it is some other problem so there is some hesitance in addressing the leak? Mr. Cole said they are required by Office of Pipeline Safety regulation to inspect the valves and any temperature and pressure transmitters on a 6 month basis and repair any problems associated with those inspections. For example, a pressure transmitter could give a false indication, however, it is not likely to show a pressure drop if one was not occurring. It could show an inaccurate pressure, but if that pressure remains static then there is no seepage of product from the pipeline. They will respond immediately to anything that they believe indicates to them that there is any kind of leakage from the pipe. They are not in the business of spilling gasoline, they don't get paid for spilling gasoline. Mr. Smith said that he just mentioned a 6 month interval in the inspection of the valves. Is he to understand that it is the kind that they would detect a pressure difference or is the pressure constantly monitored? Mr. Cole said the pressure and the status of the valve is constantly monitored. It is a physical on-site inspection that is required every 6 months. Ms. Foster said he said that when they are going to close the valves they are going to leave a remaining pressure of 500-800 pounds of pressure and they would test it with that to see if there was a pressure drop. Would they ever test it at full pressure with the valves closed? PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 16, 2002, Page 12 Mr. Cole said no, not with product they would not, no. Ms. Foster said she just wondered if something that leaks at that high pressure they would not be doing it at a stopped point. Mr. Cole said if they do that when the pipe is shut down, there will be times when it will be shut down with diesel fuel in the line. There will be times when it will be shut down with gasoline in the line. Diesel fuel leaks from the pipeline easier than gasoline leaks from the pipe line if they are talking about a seepage occurrence. Because of that fact, they would have multiple products during this test it is not likely that any type of small leak would ever be undetected for a significant period of time. Ms. Foster said it still would not be tested at that high pressure. Mr. Cole said the reason they do not do it at full pressure is this. The pressure at which the pipeline will be rated to operate is 1440 psi. That pressure exists at the pump in Stockbridge and the closer they get to the Lansing distribution terminal the lower the pressure is. So, by the time it reaches Lansing the pressure is likely to be 800-900 pounds. So in a normal routine shutdown, they stop the pump in Stockbridge and close the valve. As the pressure begins to leave the pipeline at a point in which they want to catch the remaining pressure then they close the valve at the Lansing terminal. They never leave it shut down with the full 1440 pounds of pressure because that would require them to pump against a closed valve in Lansing and that is not a good practice. Ms. Foster said if they got turned down on this, what are their viable options? Mr. Cole said he does not know what the future would hold if they were not successful in getting a permit to construct this particular line. He knows that one option is to use the existing one. That is not a very good option. He can not tell the Board what the Board of Directors at Wolverine Pipeline would choose to do in the future. All he can say is that they would recommend to them that they not spend millions in searching for the illusive perfect pipeline ramp, because it does not exist. In this current route that they are proposing it is as good a route as they would find anywhere in this area to serve this area. Mr. Ruge said in testimony before the MPSC, Mr. Charles Green, Real Estate Appraiser, he testified that there were two possible alternative routes that would avoid any heavily populated areas. Have they checked into these possible routes? PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 16, 2002, Page 13 Mr. Cole said during the first case, there were several alternative routes identified and they have looked at those alternative routes. The MPSC have looked at those alternative routes. Some of those alternative routes are very close to or similar to the routes that Mr. Green identified and it is Wolverine's opinion and it is the opinion of MPSC staff engineer that this route is superior compared to any of the alternatives that Wolverine or the MPSC studied. Mr. Green is an appraiser, so he is very good at finding out who owns property and where a pipeline route could be, but he falls short of being an expert of actually analyzing whether or not a route he picks is a real viable alternative to the one they have suggested. Mr. Frederick said they brought up earlier Mr. Hills e-mail that they received about the spill down near Jackson. The reason he asks this is he is looking at this pipeline now as something that is going to go in brand new, but it is going to be 65 years old after he is gone and presumably if pipelines get older they become more likely to have some kind of a problem be it maintenance or a leak or whatever. He would like to know what his company has learned from the experience with the Jackson spill and what would they do differently today if they had that same accident? Mr. Cole said with regard to the way they responded, they probably would not do very much differently than what they did. They responded effectively as well as Blackman Township and Jackson County Sheriff's Department and USEPA, the Michigan State Police. Anyone who has some responsibility for response to an incident like that responded timely and effectively and they were the first to realize the incident and they shut the pipeline down immediately and they responded immediately. In regard to their response they would not do anything differently. If they look at the way they compensated people who were asked to evacuate from their homes, they went above and beyond a legal requirement of a company such as theirs to reimburse them for any possible loss that they could have suffered as a result of that evacuation. The only thing that concerns him about that is that it does not satisfy some people. So, he does not know that there is anything that they would do differently, when they look at the fact that there are a very small amount of law suits compared to the fact that 1300 people were evacuated, he guesses that you would have to say that they did the right thing. His problem is that they don't seem to be getting credit for doing the right thing. But, if they watch the news, most businesses don't get credit for doing the right thing. With regard to the beginning of the question. Mr. Frederick is right, this pipeline will be 65 years old and when it is 65 years old it will be in far better condition than a current 65 year old pipeline. That is because of the fact that industry has learned a lot and regulators have learned a lot and so now they know more about how to build a pipeline and maintain a pipeline and the regulatory body understands more about what to require PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 16, 2002, Page 14 of them so they properly maintain the pipeline. So, comparing this pipeline 65 years from now to the one that currently exists to the east of them that is 65 years old today is an apples and oranges comparison. They are not comparable. Mr. Frederick said earlier he mentioned the valves that they use to close to perform the tests. From the material that he has read that was presented during the MPSC hearing, he understands that those valves are above the 48 inches of depth of the ground that the pipeline is buried. What he would like to know then, is since those valves are above ground they seem to be particularly vulnerable to terrorists attack. A year ago that would not have been as much a concern as it is now, so he would like to know what their company will do to protect those valves and potentially there could be a bomb big enough to blow up the pipeline 48 inches in the ground, although that is fairly deep. At any rate he would like to know what terrorist protection they have put into the project? Mr. Cole said they have worked with MDOT to pick locations for those valves that are above ground so that they minimize any potential for traffic running off 1-96 to be able to come in contact with the valves and they will also fence the valves and lock the fence so that it is relatively inaccessible. They are also on a heavily traveled highway so they are constantly in the vision of somebody, so they don't anticipate that a terrorist would find them to be a very attractive target and when they consider that terrorists are doing these things to make a spectacular point or to cause severe disruptions, they don't necessarily accomplish either one of those by blowing up an in ground pipeline. They would more likely focus on a storage area for petroleum products like Lansing terminal or like the refinery where it is produced. With regard to what happens if they actually did blow up the pipeline. The pipeline can be repaired and back in service within hours if not days and once it is repaired and back in service they go about the task of cleaning up anything that is spilled from the pipeline. While they can't guarantee them that a terrorist will never target a pipeline, they also can't tell them that they consider it to be a very high risk in compared to all the other targets that they would find around a city like Lansing that a terrorist might like to go after. Mr. Frederick asked if anyone, including his company ever considered moving the terminal that the pipeline would terminate from North Lansing around to somewhere in the south so they would not have to build this pipeline or use the existing one at all? Mr. Cole said Wolverine Pipeline Company does not own the distribution terminal. It is owned by one of their shippers. The distribution terminal is a very expensive facility to construct and it also needs to be permitted, so PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 16, 2002, Page 15 the short answer to the question is no that has not been considered and he would doubt very seriously if Marathon National Petroleum Company would consider it. Mr. Ruff said Mr. Cole mentioned after Mr. Frederick's question that their response in Blackman Township was timely and effective and that the pipeline was shut down immediately. How many gallons of fuel was spilled and what size pipeline was that? Mr. Cole said that pipeline was a 16" in diameter pipeline, which it is larger than the pipeline proposed here. The remotely controlled valves on that pipeline were approximately 40 miles apart. In relationship to this route within the City of Lansing they are talking 5 miles apart. Once they can close the valves that greatly diminishes the amount of product that can flow from the pump, however it will still leak out of the pipe by gravity until other manually operated valve is closed. The closest manually operated valve was 20 miles away. They did all the valve closings and reduced the amount of product that was leaking from the pipeline. . .They shut the pipeline down within minutes and they had all the manual valves closed within an hour of the actual spill. The amount that they reported to the National Response Center, which was an estimate at the time because they had no way to measure it, was 71,400 gallons. The amount that actually was lost from their pipeline by their meter measurement was like 55,000 gallons. The majority of the gasoline was picked up within the first 24 hours and more than 80% of it was eventually picked up and the difference between what was picked up and what wasn't was a significant of it evaporated because the weather was identical to what it is today. The fact that the weather was identical today is why they evacuated to so many people. They hauled off 400 dump truck loads of dirt to a landfill just so that they could make sure that the gasoline did not remain in the environment within Blackman Township. They are continuing to work with the MDEQ to make sure that the drain that the gasoline followed on its way to the Grand River is eventually 100% cleaned up to the satisfaction of the MDEQ, not to the satisfaction of Wolverine Pipe Line. Ms. Keene asked if he could tell her exactly the damages that they paid out to the nature of the injury to the residents. How did the spill impact their lives? Mr. Cole said out of the 580 residences that were asked to evacuate they all had to find alternative housing anywhere from one day to one night to seven nights. So, they paid for that cost. They paid for the cost of their meals while they were evacuated from their homes. They paid for the cost of boarding their pets if that was needed. All of those who were evacuated had their gas and their power turned off at their home during PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 16, 2002, Page 16 the evacuation period. Some of those residences are in an area where basement sump pumps are required to operate continually or the basement floods, so in some houses they had to repair flood damage because their sump pump was off when they evacuated. Any legitimate claim that they brought forward was paid. They used a check writing system with a check written on a local bank so that they had immediate access to the money. Altogether in that type of claim situation they spent in excess of 1.5 million dollars. Mr. Ruge said he wanted to clarify. To these 580 residences they paid 1.5 million dollars? Mr. Cole said not to each one. In aggregate for lodging, transportation, food, and for incidental damages to there home in the evacuation period. Ms. Keene said she assumes that the pipeline was repaired and it is still in existence where it was at the time. Mr. Cole said it was repaired in that 7 day period and put back into service. It is still in service today in the same location. Lisa Dedden, Ingham County Commissioner representing District 10, stated her district is the south Lansing area. She is strongly opposed to the Wolverine Pipe Line proposal to construct a pipeline across south Lansing. Her opposition is for herself and on behalf of her constituents who live in homes, apartments and manufactured housing along the proposed route along 1-96. Enclosed in the documents are a copy of resolution 01-156, entitled Resolution in Opposition to Proposed Wolverine Pipe Line routes against densely populated residential areas in Ingham County, which was adopted by the Ingham County Board of Commissioners on May 22, 2001 and which specifically addresses and expresses opposition to Wolverine's proposal to construct this route south Lansing along the 1-96 right of way. Also in the packet is another document that she has also filed with the Michigan Public Service Commission which is a photo addendum to her brief and opposition to this route. As you look at the packet, you can see visual evidence of people who live in this area and that there are a number of people there and that there are a number of businesses in contradiction to some of the comments that the applicant has made on that issue. In particular, she is here tonight to say Wolverine's request to construct this pipeline in Lansing should be denied because it would place this pipeline too close to far too many high consequence areas including densely populated neighborhoods consisting of homes, apartments, and manufactured housing communities, public wells upon which a large segment of mid- Michigan's population is dependent for the water supply, schools, a congested and growing business district and at least one sizeable daycare PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 16, 2002, Page 17 center. Routing a petroleum products pipeline through this level of residential and commercial development unacceptably compromises the safety and interest of thousands of Lansing residents. Official United States Census Data shows that 9,113 persons live in 4,295 housing units in the Census blocks immediately adjacently to 1-96 where this proposal runs through the City of Lansing alone. In conclusion, she stated that as witnesses have attested throughout both the case currently before the PSC and the Meridian Township case before the PSC, the risks associated with the presence of a petroleum products pipeline no matter how safely the company may attempt to construct and operate that line from an engineering standpoint are necessarily increased when the pipeline is located in an area with high density of residential and commercial development and this added risk is contrary to the public interest and safety of Lansing residents. She respectfully urged the Board to deny the proposal before them. John Pollard, resident of 1718 Blair street, stated he is vehemently opposed to the Wolverine Pipe Line. It certainly is going to threaten over 9,100 people, 4,200 housing units, 23 of 110 wells, that is about 22 percent of the drinking water of Lansing, 73 abandoned wells and the water supply for over 200,000 mid-Michigan residents. Absolutely never should you ever take a chance on jeopardizing water supply. When we need gasoline a hundred years from now, a thousand years from now who knows. It could be solar, nuclear or anything. Where human beings need air and water ten thousand years from now you betcha just like we have for ten thousand years that preceded us. The Office of Pipeline Safety may come here to watch the initial construction. They are not going to stand out there and watch this construction or supervise them the whole period. They typically show up at the beginning, watch them dig, and wander off into the sunset. According to figures released by the U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of Pipeline Safety, in 1998 the latest year for which the data was available, Michigan petroleum and natural gas lines had to repair 9,300 leaking underground gas lines and that figure is double what it was in 1991. Maybe they are getting better with their technology but they are finding more and more problems. He had data from the Office of Pipeline Safety. One of things that they are always going to try and tell you is that the leading cause of accidents and problems of pipelines are third party damage. People coming and digging. If you were to take all the problems that cause leakages whether it is by volume or cause of accident, for example, if corrosion of a pipeline, failed pipeline, failed well, incorrect operation of a pipeline and malfunctioning equipment, that is 42.4 percent of all the spillage product. It is also 46 percent of all the accidents whereas this third party stuff they are talking about is only 24 percent. What has happened is dis- aggregated all the data related to a pipeline but when you re-aggregate the data, the pipeline is the biggest cause of problems with a pipeline not PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 16, 2002, Page 18 the outside source. Finally, he stated that he is opposed to the pipeline because this is nothing short of environmental discrimination or racism. The pipeline is coming through here. He has the 2000 Census data for the track level: the tracks that run along East Lansing and Meridian, the six tracks that run along Lansing. We have 12 percent to a 55 percent of a minority population compared to Meridian of 7.6 or 17 percent. The median or average minority population totals in Lansing are 30.8 percent or 30.4 percent respectively. That is about 190.6 times greater than it is in Meridian and 2 2/3 times greater than it is in Meridian, if I look at the average and the median. We have more children and more poor people living along the pipeline. The average household income in Lansing is $49,784 compared to $83,000. There are some tracks in Lansing that are 12%, 15%, 25%, 36%, 38.3% and 55.5% minority. To do this is to violate civil rights, is to violate the 14`h Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and he's asking the Board to turn Wolverine down, send them packing and find an alternate route. This does not come through a densely populated area which is an oxymoron. There is no such thing as a safe pipeline where there are people. Send the pipeline out in the wilderness somewhere and if it blows up, we'll save the wilderness and no one will die. Brian Smith, resident of 1007 Woodbine, Chairman of Citizens for a Better Lansing, stated there is not much more that he could add. He feels that constructing the pipeline is contrary to public interest and safety by putting the pipeline through the City of Lansing. This case should be about public interest and safety not big business and who has the deepest pockets. It is clear that Wolverine calculated their risks based on the ability of the impacted families and businesses to fight them and not on the risk of population of minorities, low income families and children who would be effected the most if the pipeline fails. Basically, deny the pipeline. Clyde Dugan, Special Projects Director and Water Utilities Director for the Lansing Board of Water and Light, stated that he submitted testimony on behalf of Board of Water and Light in opposition to the Wolverine Pipe Line in the MPSE hearings. He wanted to go over briefly the elements of what he submitted and what the opposition was. The proposed pipeline runs through 9 Y2 miles of public water supply well head protection areas. The well head protection areas were determined by the United States Geological Survey using computer models of the Aquifer system to delineated well head protection areas were then approved by Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. Well head protection areas are those areas that contribute water to public water supply wells within a 10 year time frame. Parenthetically, that also includes any constituents of any product that are soluble in water when water travels at that speed. In other words, if a contaminate is introduced into the ground or into the Aquifer in these areas, it will reach a public water supply well PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 16, 2002, Page 19 within ten years. Ten public drinking water wells that are within a one quarter mile buffer zone would be impacted directly by a leakage of gasoline contaminants from the pipeline and an additional 13 wells are within the adjacent well head protection areas. Of these 23 wells, 21 are Board of Water and Light wells. The 21 BWL wells within the impacted well head protection area represent 22% of our total well field capacity and they are very productive wells requiring minimal conditioning, so they represent 25% of our base load capacity. In addition to existing wells, the proposed pipeline route goes through areas where new wells are planned and that will be a well head protection area in the future. The water supply wells within the well head protection area would be significantly impacted by either a catastrophic failure, which is a sudden and large release, and that type of failure can be detected by the pipeline control system, or a non-catastrophic failure, which is an undetected leak. One of the experts for the Wolverine Pipe Line Company represented that up to 16 gallons a minute could be lost without the automatic protective system catching it. Contamination that enters the ground will, unless completely removed, likely enter the drinking water aquifer. The layer of rock, predominately shale, that separates ground water from the glacial aquifer or the overlying aquifer is discontinuous and much of this portion of the well head protection area and that was also reflected in the environmental assessment done by Wolverine's consultant. In addition, the proposed pipeline route passes through our southwest well field, the Steifel well field well head protection area, which has no protective layer at all and by definition this well head protection area represents 10 year time and travel, not decades as represented by Mr. Cole. All of these observations have been confirmed by the BWL Hydro Geologists consultant. In the case of a catastrophic failure, if the automatic system is engaged, a quantity of 3.1 million gallons per day at 14.40 psi ensures a considerable amount of liquid petroleum will be forced directly into the ground and we have indicated in the file testimony what the volume of that would be. A non-catastrophic failure, such as an undetected leak, is even of greater concern than the sudden catastrophic type. Any automated control system has limited sensitivity to detect leaks with a flow volume of 3.1 million gallons per day, just 1/100 of 1% represents 310 gallons per day of gasoline into the ground system. The first indication of leak would likely be when the contaminates were first measured in the BWL drinking water wells. Ron Ashley, resident of 4521 Old Lansing Road, stated he has been a life long resident of Lansing. He finds it very odd that we have heard so little from the local media, State Journal or any of the local news channels. Little, if best, has been said and he cannot understand how few people are here tonight to speak on behalf of trying to stop the pipeline. As a realtor for 20 years, developers always try to find the path of least resistence to put through what they want over the desires or the objections of other people who are already there on the property that they PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 16, 2002, Page 20 are trying to cross. He feels that Wolverine is going across the south side of Lansing because there is so much rental property and less opposition from home owners that Wolverine thinks they can get away with this and get it across without anybody saying too much about it. He wanted to know that if Wolverine goes along 1-96, are they paying the state some kind of fee to run alongside the expressway instead of buying land and running the pipeline through the countryside away from the city. Is this why the public has not heard anything about the pipeline or is there something he is missing on the matter. As the pipeline crosses 1-96, when it reaches an overpass of one of the under streets of south Lansing, where is it routed then? Is it buried in the ground of one of the lower streets or how is it handled at this point? (i.e. 1-96 crosses Cedar Street, South Washington Avenue, Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd., etc.) Mr. Ruff stated that it is his understanding of what is called directional drilling, where Wolverine would actually drill underneath the street intersection, even deeper to get underneath Cedar Street and the same would be for rivers that would be crossed. Wolverine would drill underneath the river and then back up the other side, even a 12 inch steel pipe has a bend to it over a certain length. Mr. Ashley stated that he finds it very odd that some corporation can come into the City and their wishes and their desires are more important than the people who live in the City and pay taxes in the City and who have lived here their whole lives. He used to live in Dimondale and the same thing happened to a tract of land behind the subdivision in which he lived. The land was as dormant as a farmer's field for years. The sewer line was put in from Dimondale out to Grand Pointe marina. The company that laid the pipeline found out that the land was zoned multiple dwelling and they went to the township and threatened them because they wanted to put in a trailer park. The representative of the company stood there the first night at the township meeting and said the company has a quarter of a million dollars to sue anybody who will fight us. He stated that was so bazaar and so obnoxious that people who would build homes and live in that subdivision for 30 years, older people who are in their retirement years, had this on their backs and had this thrown in their face as being life long residents of that township. He cannot believe that they thought they could just blow right in and stomp all over these people's life long living out there and enjoying their property and paying their taxes and thought their desires were more important than the people who lived out there. He stated that he would be ashamed of the Board if they allowed Wolverine to pull this stunt in the City of Lansing. Dan Judd, resident of 1707 W. Ottawa, stated that he is the owner of ARQ, Inc., the company who is proposing to purchase the building at 934 Clark Street in reference to NCU-1-2002, and was directed to speak during the Comments from the Audience. PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 16, 2002, Page 21 Seeing no one else wishing to speak on this matter, Mr. Frederick referred Act-7-2002 to the Planning Board, Committee of the Whole, to meet on Tuesday, April 23, 2002 at Council Chambers, 10th Floor City Hall, 124 W. Michigan Avenue. 5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE Dan Judd, resident of 1707 W. Ottawa, stated that the proposal looks like it recommended that a substitution go through with a couple of caveats that include the driveway, whether it be the driveway and a parking lot or just the driveway, the hard surface being with some type of porous pavement and that there should be some sort of landscape, screening and buffering zones. He wasn't sure if that meant a fence or if it meant that the company had to build a berm. He stated that the company has not yet purchased the property and how this goes will depend on how the company change whatever offer that has been made to the property owner. Mr. Ruff stated that the porous pavement is with the idea it would not be hard surfaced in such a way with asphalt or concrete the parking area and driveway so that water would not be able to percolate into the ground. It could be gravel or some other surface that would allow water to penetrate into the ground and that may take from a site plan review stand point whether a certain gravel is approved that it be properly edged so that it doesn't spill over any place or if another material is used like brick, cobbles, or concrete pavers, that would be an option as well. Then the landscape, screening and buffering could include fencing, fencing and landscaping or landscaping. Mr. Ruff wasn't sure if there was fencing on the site presently but stated it would be to help soften the parking lot areas primarily from the adjoining residential properties. That is the purpose of it and that it could take on many different forms that could be designed to meet not only the company's financial needs but also meet the code requirements for buffering. Mr. Judd stated that he could get some type of reasonable quotes and talk with the Planning Department. His biggest concern was that the only quick quotes the company could get on anything that wasn't basically gravel was going for $10.00 a square foot, which would add conservatively $40,000-$50,000 to this project unless the owner cut the price of the building by over half the amount. The building is going to be vacant for a very, very long time. If gravel is a reasonable option, then that is what the company would like to do. Mr. Ruff stated that if this request is approved with these conditions, it doesn't mean the company still has to purchase the building. Seeing no one else wishing to address the Board, Mr. Frederick closed the public comment period. 6. RECESS was taken by the Board. PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 16, 2002, Page 22 7. BUSINESS SESSION A. Ms. Keene moved; seconded by Ms. Foster to approve the minutes of April 2, 2002 without corrections. On a voice vote, motion carried (6-0), the minutes of April 2, 2002 were APPROVED. B. Committee Reports 1. ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE, Mr. Ruge, Chair a. Z-5-2002, 1500 E. Cavanaugh Road, "I" Heavy Industrial District to "G-2" Wholesale District and "H" Light Industrial District This is a request by Kevin VanErman to rezone a 13.968 acre parcel located at 1500 E. Cavanaugh Road, west of Aurelius Rd., immediately east of the Penn. Central Railroad right-of-way and more particularly described as: W '/2 OF W % OF SE 1/4 LYING E OF MC RR R/W, EXC COM SEC CEN, TH S 185.5 FT TO MC RR R/W, SE-LY ALONG MC RR R/W 268 FT TO OPEN DRAIN, N 4DEG 50MIN E ALONG SAID DRAIN TO E&W 1/4 LINE, W 119 FT TO BEG; SEC 34 T4N R2W from "I" Heavy Industrial District to "G-2" Wholesale District and "H" Light Industrial District. The applicant proposes to rezone the north 3.51 acres to "G-2" Wholesale District and the remaining 10.45 acres to "H" Light Industrial District. The purpose of the request is to allow for the creation of small industrial park. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows: Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Ms. Keene to recommend approval of Z-5-2002, 1500 E. Cavanaugh Road, "I" Heavy Industrial District to "G-2" Wholesale District and "H" Light Industrial District. Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Foster. . . Ave Keene . .Ave Patrick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Smith. . .Ave Ruge . .Ave On a Roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 16, 2002, Page 23 b. Z-6-2002, Willoughby Road, A" Residential District to "DM-2" Residential District (Amended to "B" Residential District) This is a request by John E. Sabty to rezone a vacant 62 acre parcel from "A" Residential District (single family) to "DM-2" Residential District (multiple family). The property is located north of Willoughby Rd. and south of 1-96 in the southeast 1/4 of Section 9, T3N-R2W, City of Lansing and more particularly described as: The East % of the Southeast 114 of the Southwest 114 and the Southwest 114 of the Southeast 114 lying South of the southerly right of way line of 1-96 Section 9 T3N-R2W, City of Lansing, Ingham County, MI., except the West 100.0 feet. The purpose of the request is to allow for the creation of an 850 unit multi-family development. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows: Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Ms. Foster to recommend approval of Z-6-2002, Willoughby Road, "A" Residential District to "B" Residential District with the assumption that a PRD will be submitted and there will be a 25% bonus density by utilizing the energy conservation techniques. For the record, the Board received an agreement from Mr. Sabty to amend his application for rezoning to "B" Residential District. Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Foster. . . Aye Keene . .Ave Patrick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Smith. . .Ave Ruge . .Aye On a Roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. C. NCU-1-2002, 934 Clark Street, Request for Substitution and Class A Status for a Nonconformity This is a request by ARQ Inc. for a substitution of a nonconforming use and Class A status for the property PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 16, 2002, Page 24 located at 934 Clark Street. The applicant proposes to make approximately $50,000 in improvements to the subject building in order to change its use from a printing business to an office that provides internet services. The subject property is currently zoned "B" Residential and is nonconforming for parking and use. This is not a matter of a rezoning. Mr. Ruge inquired about nonconforming for parking. He stated that he went to the site and it seemed there was plenty of space for parking. There was an empty lot next door which Mr. Judd indicated was part of the deal and that it looked like at one time it had a house on the property. Mr. Ruff stated that it was probably nonconforming for improvement and that parking number is contingent upon the use. Mr. Ruff gave the example of a use that required only five spaces, it might not be nonconforming for number. When you have a gravel surface or have something that is not lined, it is difficult to say. You can say that you can get so many spaces but practically when people park on gravel they don't park the same as if you would give it hard surfacing and lines. The parking number is probably not the coefficient that is nonconforming. It is probably due to the surfacing or its improvement. Mr. Ruge inquired about the City's standards for lighting in a parking lot. Mr. Ruff stated that there is no requirement for lighting but if you do, the lighting is supposed to remain on site. It is not supposed to be directed or spill over to the adjacent properties. Mr. Ruff also stated that most insurance companies demand that you have lighting. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows: Mr. Ruge made a motion, seconded by Ms. Foster to recommend approval of NCU-1-2002, 934 Clark Street, Request for Substitution and Class A Status for a Nonconformity with the following conditions: 1. The driveway be surfaced with porous pavement. 2. Landscape, screening and buffering be provided along the periphery of the property as required by the Zoning Ordinance. PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 16, 2002, Page 25 3. That all other requirements be met (storm water runoff, parking lot lighting, access to parking space, etc.) through the Site Plan Review process. 4. That all required improvements be completed within one year from the approval of this NCU request. 5. The south driveway be closed. Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ . . . . Ave Foster. . . Aye Keene . .Ave Patrick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Smith. . .Ave Ruge . .Ave On a Roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED w/CONDITIONS. d. Ordinance Amendments (Accessory Structure and Front Yard Setbacks) Mr. Ruge stated that Ms. Stachowiak had indicated the language that was currently presented was found unenforceable by the Court, so it was tabled. Next meeting, Wednesday, May 15, 2002 at 4:00 p.m. 316 N. Capitol Ave., Department Conference Room. 2. URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, Ms. Patrick, Chair Next meeting, Tuesday, April 23, 2002, at 6:00 p.m. Council Chambers, 101h Floor, City Hall, 124 W. Michigan Ave. 3. Committee of the Whole - None. 4. Executive Committee - None. C. REPORT FROM PLANNING MANAGER Mr. Ruff stated that the Development Planning Committee of Council met today and recommended approval of the recent rezoning requests that the Board has recommended. Z-21-2001 and Z-1-2002 were approved. PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 16, 2002, Page 26 D. PENDING ITEMS (future action required) 1. Zoning and Ordinance Committee a. - - urner St.,"H"Light Industrial District to"G-1"Business District(Tabled February 11, 1998) b. Z-5-1998,401-407 E. Grand River,"F"Commercial District to"G-1" Business District(Tabled June 10, 1998) C. Z-8-2000,3901 S. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd.,"F"Commercial to"H"Light Industrial District(Tabled June 14, 2000) d. Z-15-2000, 301 W. Lenawee Street, Professional Office to"G-1" Business District(Tabled January 17,2001 e. P-1-2001,Tentative Preliminary lat,Wexford Woods (Tabled June 13, May 9, 2001) f. PRD-2-2001,"Crystal Woods", Planned Residential Neighborhood (Tabled August 15, 2001 g. SLU-6-2001, 51)-519 E. Grand River Ave., Church in"F-1"Commercial District (Tabled November 14,2001) h. SLU-8-2001, 3000 W. Miller Road,Additional Parking for an Existing Church (Tabled November 14,2001) i. SLU-1-2002, 1400 Block,W. Jolly Road, Special Land Use Permit-New Church J. Ordinance Amendments, Front Yard Setbacks and Accessory Structures 2. Urban Development Committee a. Act-9-2000,201 E. Grand River Avenue, Proj. Sign Over ROW (Tabled June 27, 2000) b. Act-2-2002, Lansing Housing Commission Property,310 Seymour,Acquisition for public purposes(Tabled February 26, 2002) 3. Committee of the Whole 4. Planning Board a. Act-27-2001,313 E. Grand River Ave. (Comfort Station), Market for Sale(Tabled April 2,2002) 8. NEW BUSINESS - None. 9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON - None. 10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS Ms. Foster stated that during the Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting there was a discussion about obtaining a legal opinion regarding the flood plain development zoning that the City currently has. The second thing discussed was affordable housing and that some people could argue whether or not there was enough affordable housing in Lansing. The last thing mentioned briefly was looking into whether 1% of private development budget could go into art or any construction that will be occurring in the city. She inquired about the Z&O Committee obtaining a legal opinion of whether or not some of these things could happen here in Lansing. She explained that Portland, Oregon takes 1% of the total budget and applies it towards art. Mr. Ruff stated he would check into the matter. He also stated that he could obtain a report on affordable housing from Mr. Emil Winnicker, Development Manager. There was a general discussion that followed regarding affordable housing. PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 16, 2002, Page 27 11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS Mr. Ruge stated that he has not seen any changes with the church on Michigan Ave. He knew about the enforcement action taken against the church but he is not seeing any changes. Mr. Ruge inquired about the plumbing business on Lake Lansing. He stated that the plumbing business rebuilt all the curbs and put a curb cut in front of the building. Mr. Ruff stated he would check into the matter. Ms. Foster inquired about who determines street widening and street improvements. Mr. Ruff stated that in the City of Lansing, the City makes those determinations except if it is a state trunk line, the City would work cooperatively. Mr. Ruff discussed Capitol Improvements Mr. Frederick inquired about the King World convenient store that is located on the southwest corner of Kalamazoo and Clemens. He stated that the store looks like it has a beer and wine license and that in his opinion it is looking like trouble, especially with signs. Mr. Ruff stated that he would look into the matter. 12. ADJOURNMENT - Meeting was adjourned at 9:28 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James A. Ruff, Secretary, Planning Board PB Minutes.041602.wpd Draft to Clerk April 26,2002 Approved 2002 To Clerk 2002 Minutes of the Regular Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD 7:00 p.m., Tenth Floor, Council Chambers Lansing City Hall Tuesday, April 16, 2002 1. OPENING SESSION The meeting was called to order at 7:06 p.m. by Chairman Frederick. A. Roll call. Present: Frederick, Foster, Keene, Patrick, Smith, Ruge. B. Staff Attending: Ruff, Rieske, Hodges. C. Excused absence: Ms. Cordill. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA It was moved by Mr. Smith, supported by Ms. Keene to approve the revised agenda. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (5-0). 3. COMMUNICATIONS A. Email from Alisande Henry stating Mayor Hollister would not be able to attend the Planning Board meeting. B. Letter from Gilbert and Rebecca Ledesma opposing the Wolverine Pipeline. C. Letter from Kathy "K.P." Pelleran opposing the Wolverine Pipeline. D. Email from Raymond Hill regarding a Wolverine Pipe Line spill in June of 2000. Mr. Frederick stated for the record that Mr. Ruge arrived at 7:10 p.m. after role was taken and that he will be present for the duration of the meeting. Ms. Patrick mentioned an informal communication from the Old Everett Neighborhood Organization that takes the position of opposition for the Wolverine Pipeline and that the organization could not send a representative because of meeting conflicts. 4. HEARINGS A. Act-7-2002, Gasoline Pipeline in 1-96 Right-of-Way, Wolverine Pipe Line Company PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 16, 2002, Page 2 Wolverine Pipe Line Co. is requesting to locate a gasoline pipe line in the 1-96 right of way in the City of Lansing. The purpose of the pipeline is for the transportation of gasoline products. Since such products are highly toxic and flammable, a break in the pipeline could result in the release of a large volume of toxic liquid. Although a significant leak may be relatively remote, such situations do occur. The potential consequences of a pipeline break could be of such magnitude that their placement in proximity to developed lands and other high consequence areas would be inconsistent with sound planning practices and the policies advanced in the City's comprehensive plans. Correspondingly, location considerations for such a request involve the nature and function of neighboring land uses, the potential consequences of a pipeline on these uses, and the available alternatives to this location. The neighboring land uses along the route are largely developed, consisting of residential developments of varying density, as well as commercial and office uses. Much of the land that remains undeveloped reflects areas of environmental significance and sensitive areas that are critical to the regions supply of drinking water. The proposed route goes through the 'Mason Esker', the longest underground glacial river bed in Michigan. This esker is the principle source drinking water for the region and contaminants run very quickly through such deposits. Drinking water concerns also include: the route cutting across established well head protection zones, being in proximity to the Board of Water and Light's Wise Road Conditioning Plant, including a 5 million gallon reservoir of drinking water which represents one third of the water supply capacity for the region; 10 of BWL production wells are within a quarter-mile of the pipeline route and another 13 within the well head protection area that could be impacted by the route. Continuation of the exiting development pattern is supported by the City's Comprehensive Plans. The plans do not recognize or recommend the I- 96 r/w as a utility corridor. Much of the area surrounding the Lansing urbanized area remains undeveloped, offering ample opportunities for locating the pipeline through undeveloped areas. Two routes were identified by a real estate appraiser, Charles Green. Four alternate were considered acceptable by the Public Services Commission. Until all reasonable alternatives have been exhausted the public's safety and welfare can be protected to the City's satisfaction, the location proposed for the pipeline is considered to be incompatible with the PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 16, 2002, Page 3 existing land use pattern, the future pattern being advance in the Comprehensive Plans, and sound planning practices in general. With respect to character, the proposed route is in close proximity to a range of developments and other high consequence areas. It also is a route reflecting areas of high minority concentrations. The disproportionate placement of minorities at risk to a potential environmental hazard threat raises concerns of environment justice. Given the composition of the adjoining land uses and population, the request is considered to be inconsistent with the general character of the neighboring area. With respect to the 'extent' of the proposal, the size and design of the pipeline would appear consistent with its intended use and a facility of lessor size would not result in a disproportionate reduction in it's potential impacts. Based on the findings detailed in sections above, proposal is considered inconsistent with the location and character of the surrounding area, the land use pattern being advanced in the comprehensive plans, and sound planning practices. It is, therefore, suggested that the Planning Board recommend that the request be denied. John Hodges gave a brief overview. Mr. Ruff gave a brief clarification regarding the area of the pipeline that the Board is reviewing and the information provided by Wolverine Pipeline. Leslie Cole, Vice President and General Manager Wolverine Pipe Line, Portage, Michigan. As Mr. Ruff described, they have made application with the Michigan Public Service Commission to own, operate and maintain a pipeline. A portion of that pipeline route that they have asked for a permit does cross through the City of Lansing. It is a very long pipeline. Some of the shortest distances that cross through any municipality is through the City of Lansing. They have asked that the route be along interstate 96 as it goes around the South and West sides of Lansing. In the MPSC Staff's testimony, as you will find evidence in the records. They say that there is no such thing as a perfect pipeline route, but that this particular route is as good as it gets. The reason that it is as good as it gets because it is a freeway corridor. It is a transportation corridor. A pipeline is a transportation facility. The corridor is also isolated and fenced. It has minimal easements in it and contractors that do work within the corridor must contact MDOT for permission to do work in that Right-of-way. Because it is a isolated, fenced and controlled corridor and because contractors must have MDOT's permission, it reduces the likelihood of third party damage, which is the leading cost of PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 16, 2002, Page 4 pipeline failures. The route utilizes existing highway corridors for almost the entire length. This in tern minimizes impacts to residences and businesses. Environmental damage will be minimized because the areas along the 1-96 right-of-way have previously been disturbed in order to accommodate the highway itself. Using the highway right-of-way eliminates the need to take land away from other uses. The proposed pipeline will be constructed with state of the art technology. Industry experts as well as the office of pipeline safety have determined that the pipeline will be constructed and operated in a safe manner. The presence of a pipeline will not negatively inhibit development, particularly because the pipeline will be located in a highway right-of-way where development will not be occurring. Also, Meridian Township and East Lansing are a perfect example of how a community can flourish even with the presence of a pipeline. Experts, including the City of Lansing's, Mr. Hansel, have concluded that in the unlikely event of a pipeline incident, the City's water supply would not be affected. He would appreciate their consideration in recommending that the City of Lansing grant its consent to this project and he would like to answer any questions. Mr. Ruge asked why they withdrew their application to have the pipeline follow its original route? Mr. Cole said the original route of the pipeline, which is 65 years old, has suffered from what they would consider to be encroachments. That is basically development within a very close proximity to the pipeline. Because of the encroachments, which were schools, apartment buildings, residential property, business property, a post office, the Meridian Mall. Because of the encroachment of areas like this, the Michigan Public Service Commission could not recommend that old route as a good location for a new route. Looking at these encroachments and the difficulty that would exist in constructing the new pipeline within that highly congested route and looking at the fact that there is not a highly congested area along 1-96 as it goes south and west of Lansing. Wolverine Pipeline Company decided that it would be better to withdraw the portion of their application that was north of 1-96 all the way up to St. Johns Township and reapply for a permit utilizing the 1-96 corridor. Mr. Ruge said that there were more residences and businesses by the pipeline there than if it went through on 1-96. Mr. Cole said that there is an order of magnitude greater number of residential homes, apartment complexes and business development along that existing corridor than there will be along the 1-96 corridor. Mr. Ruge asked what it meant when he said in order of magnitude? PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 16, 2002, Page 5 Mr. Cole said what it means is, there were locations where the pipeline would have run down the middle of a residential street. There were three locations where the pipeline would run in between the buildings of apartment complexes. There were two schools where the pipeline would have crossed the school grounds and in one of those, the current pipeline crosses underneath the schools playground equipment. It runs around the perimeter drive of the Meridian Mall. It runs through the parking lot of the Meridian Post Office. They would actually need pictures of that current route to get a good understanding of what he is talking about. With regard to distances from residential property to the pipeline, the distances that they will find along the 1-96 proposed route are much greater than the majority of the distances that they would have found along the route as it went through Okemos, Meridian and East Lansing. Mr. Ruge asked if it was true that despite the fact that the pipeline was there they decided to build their businesses and houses next to it. Mr. Cole said that is true which is another good reason for using 1-96. Because business development, residential development, any type of development other than transportation infrastructure will not be allowed in that corridor. Ms. Keene asked what are of the State or who will benefit as a result of the placement of the pipeline through the City of Lansing? Mr. Cole said in this particular area the City of Lansing is the biggest beneficiary, but also the Central Michigan Area is another big beneficiary of this pipeline system. Towns like Mt. Pleasant, Bay City, Midland, Saginaw and all of the 29 counties that make up the Central Michigan Area will be beneficiaries of the pipeline. Ms. Keene said when they say the City of Lansing, they are including Meridian Township and all the local here? Mr. Cole said yes, the distribution terminal that currently services the Greater Lansing Area, which is several counties in radius around that distribution terminal is located off the Grand River Avenue to the north and west side of the City of Lansing, west of the City's airport. That is where this current pipeline will end and will connect to an existing pipeline that then carries product to a distribution terminal in Bay City. The two distribution terminals are what will serve Central Michigan. So, they can say that Meridian Township is benefitted, East Lansing is benefitted, Okemos is benefitted, Delta Township is benefitted, but the City of Lansing has the largest number of residence in this area in one municipal PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 16, 2002, Page 6 unit so he would say that the City of Lansing is as big a beneficiary of anyone in the area of Lansing proper. Ms. Keene said he answered her question, but she wanted to clarify that while Lansing will benefit, it is also in her view carrying a burden for the complete Mid Michigan Area. Mr. Cole said he would not agree that it would be carrying the burden. When they look at the number of miles that the pipeline traverses through communities in this area, the fewest number of miles in any municipality with the exception of probably Watertown Township is Lansing itself. Ms. Keene asked if he is saying that Meridian Township and Okemos areas have more pipeline going through them than what will run through the City of Lansing? Mr. Cole said no, he is saying that the townships that border interstate 96 as it goes south and west of Lansing are the townships that will be crossed by the pipeline. They are the townships that are crossed by the Interstate highway and if they measure the distance that the pipeline or the highway traverses through those townships, they will find that the distance is longer than the distance that passes through Lansing. Ms. Keene said what about those townships east of Lansing, such as Meridan? Mr. Cole said there are townships west that also benefit and it is not passing through the townships west or east. It goes around the south and west edge of Lansing. It can benefit people in Charlotte, but it does not cross through Charlotte. Ms. Keene said her concern is that the citizens of Lansing appear to be feeling that the City of Lansing is being asked to assume the burden of having this pipeline, when all these other locations, such as Meridian Township are going to have only the benefit, while they carry the burden. That is a concern that she has. Mr. Cole said in his view she does not have to be concerned about that because it is not a burden. It crosses through the City of Lansing, while in the corridor of an Interstate highway so it does not impact anybody's private property or any property that the City of Lansing currently zones for other uses. Ms. Keene said what she is talking about the burden, she is thinking about things that the anxiety, for example, that the residents will suffer because PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 16, 2002, Page 7 they are more closely exposed to the possibility of something happening like what occurred down in Blackman Township. That is what she is talking about. The thing that Meridian Township will avoid. Mr. Cole said they all mentioned Mr. Hill who lives in Blackman Township. Also contained in that record is testimony from the Blackman Township Supervisor who testified for the MPSC that Wolverine Pipeline Company is a very good corporate citizen and it fully cooperates with all government agencies, all interested parties in its response to incidents. While they don't plan to have incidents, they stay ready to respond to incidents so that people who do live near the pipeline don't have to be burdened with worry of what might happen because they are fully capable of working any response activity to the point that no one living near the pipeline is in danger because of any incident that the pipeline could possibly have. If they would also remember the fact that this is a brand new pipeline and so the likelihood it having an incident is very remote when they compare it to a pipeline that was built in 1953 like the one through Blackman Township. Also understand the current regulatory structure in regard to pipelines they would know that regulations where just passed that requires pipeline companies to have an integrity management program. This program will severely lessen the likelihood of any incident with regard to a brand new constructed pipeline built in the year 2002. Ms. Keene asked why they withdrew the proposal in Meridian Township. How did that come about? Mr. Cole said in the original permit application they asked for a route from Jackson, Blackman Township, to Stockridge Township and from Stockridge Township to St. Johns Township. The route from Jackson to Stockbridge was a new route, one where they did not currently have a pipeline. The route from Stockbridge to St. Johns was following the existing pipeline. They had just recently purchased that pipeline. The easements associated with the ownership of the pipeline is one of the most valuable assets associated with owning the pipeline. Since they had just purchased it, they elected to attempt to use that newly acquired asset by laying a brand new pipeline next to the old pipeline to replace the old pipeline. The administrative law judge that was hearing that particular case recommended to the Michigan Public Service Commission that they deny the permit. Prior to the Michigan Public Service Commission actually hearing the case, they withdrew the portion that was a concern to the administrative law judge and that was the portion that existed between 1-96 and 1-69. As a result of withdrawing that piece they were granted a permit for the piece from Blackman Township, the pipeline has been constructed, and they were granted the permit for the piece from Stockbridge to 1-96. That particular part of the line has not been PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 16, 2002, Page 8 constructed because they also agreed with the MPSC Staff that they would not construct it until they had a completed route to the Marathon Ashlen Petroleum Terminal on the west side of Lansing. So, what they have today is a 20 mile new pipeline with some refurbished tanks at Stockbridge and a new pump station in Stockbridge that is continuing to pump gasoline down a 65 year old pipeline. Ms. Foster said continuing with that questions, why where they going to reject that permit. Mr. Cole said because of the highly congested nature of Okemos, Meridian and East Lansing. The route through that area is much more highly congested than anything along 1-96. Plus going through that highly congested area they would have done so by easement, which means that they would not have the protection afforded by being in a corridor like 1-96 where excavation work is limited. Mr. Ruge asked if they were to refurbish the old 65 year old pipeline, the same size pipe as it is, could they continue to use their current easement? Mr. Cole said they could continue to use their current pipeline as it is. It's current operating pressure is 800 psi and they can not refurbish it to the point where they can raise the operating pressure to a level necessary to meet the demands of Central Michigan because the permit that enabled that pipeline to be built does not allow it to be modified in that manner. Mr. Ruge said they can pump the same amount of gas through that line, but they could not pump any more. Mr. Cole said approximately half of what they are trying to replace. Mr. Ruge said should they approve their request, would they be willing to hire a private consultant along with the City to monitor the work on the pipeline in general? Mr. Cole said Wolverine Pipeline inspects the construction of a pipeline facility. The office of pipeline safety also inspects the construction of a pipeline such as this. The office of pipeline safety might not be there daily. If the City of Lansing feels that it would be necessary in order to grant consent for the project that it have a full time inspector to watch the construction activities that occurred within the City of Lansing, Wolverine Pipeline would be happy to accommodate that and would be happy to work with the City of Lansing so that they could find reputable to do that work that were not in any way affiliated with Wolverine Pipeline. PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 16, 2002, Page 9 Mr. Ruge said he thinks that one of the big concerns is not just the construction but ongoing inspections to ensure that there is not some kind of a leak, especially that goes on undetected. Mr. Cole said that they have agreed to put in 6 or 7 valves along this corridor as it comes into 1-96 and crosses around the city. The purpose of those 6 valves is to drastically reduce any amount of gasoline that could leak from the pipeline in the event there was an incident with the pipeline. Those 6 valves will be remotely operated that will be capable of being manually operated on site and in addition to the valves they are planning to install pressure and temperature sensors at each location so that every time the pipeline is shut down, they can close those valves using the pressure and temperature sensors to run a pressure test during that down time. If they combine that with methodic protection and that they run an internal inspection tool every 5 years, it would be almost impossible for a leak to develop that they could not detect prior to the leak losing enough gasoline to impact any of the city's water wells. Mr. Ruge said he is saying it is not necessary for some outside person to . Mr. Cole said he is just describing what they would do. If they look at what is absolutely necessary, what he described as overkill, but they are doing this to make people understand that they plan to operate a safe pipeline and they don't have to be afraid of it. If the City of Lansing would like to review such inspections on a periodic basis they would be happy to allow to do so. Mr. Smith said Mr. Cole earlier referenced a Mr. Hensel from the Board of Water and Light. To be clear is he referring to the Mr. Hensel who is the geologist from Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Mr. Cole said he referred to him as an expert witness for the City of Lansing, which is what he was. Mr. Smith said the reason he asks is because first off on the Executive Summary that was presented to the MPSC on page 50 is a statement that says potential long term impacts from larger petroleum spills may occur due to valve or pipeline failures during pipe operations. So, this is something that they anticipate happening? Mr. Cole said no they do not anticipate it. Mr. Smith said it does say in the report that is even foreseeable. Remote though it might be it does use the word foreseeable. Mr. Hensel, there is PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 16, 2002, Page 10 a statement they have from the Board of Water and Light, has confirmed that the area through which the pipeline is proposed. . . It says, "in addition the proposed pipeline route passes through their southwest wellfield, the Stifel Well Field Wellhead Protection Area that has no protective layer at all." So, were there to be a leak, whether it was catastrophic leak or minor there is very little there to prevent it from going into the Aquifer and possibly contaminating the water supply of which much of the water for Lansing does then come from underground water. From the Saginaw Aquifer. So what he wondering now is even though he has assured them that it would be safe, there are some pretty frightening statistics here. For example it says for a non-catastrophic failure such as an undetected leak is an even greater concern than a sudden catastrophic line failure. Any automated control system has limited sensitivity to leaks. With a flow volume of 3.1 million gallons, nearly .01 of 1% of the daily flow would allow 310 gallons of gasoline a day to enter the ground. If the leak remained undetected for just a month almost 10,000 gallons would be lost. The first indication of the leak would likely be when contaminants would be measured in the Board of Water and Light drinking water wells. So, how do they allay their fear of that? Mr. Cole said first of that the Stifel Well Field is over a mile away and he is sure that they could consult with any geologist and find out that it takes literally decades for gasoline to travel through the ground for a mile. What he just described about the valves and the temperate and pressure transmitters is so that they have the opportunity to make sure that there is no undetectable leaks. Also, if they would recall the area in which they are proposing to build this pipeline, they would remember that in many, many months of the year, the ground is wet and they simply can not leak 300 gallons of gasoline into the ground that is wet and not have that gasoline surface. So, the public is one safeguard against the city's waterwells because if it does surface it will be reported. If it is reported they will eliminate the leak and clean up the ground. They will reminidiate the location and it will not pose a threat to the city's waterwells. The current 65 year old pipeline that runs between 1-96 and 1-69 has existed there for 65 years and although they did not own it for that period of time and reviewing the records that they have from the prior owners, they do not find that it has leaked within that corridor and that corridor is also a corridor that could put gasoline in the same aquifer that they referred to. So, simply forcing them to use the old pipeline is not a way to resolve the exposure of the aquifer to gasoline contamination if they were the type of company that would allow that to happen. Mr. Smith asked how they do determine an underground leak? PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 16, 2002, Page 11 Mr. Cole said they conduct an over in short analysis of the line while it is running measuring what goes in one end versus what comes out of the other end. This is computerized and very accurate. Then when they close a pipeline they leave pressure on a pipeline. In this case there would be 375 to 500 pounds of pressure left on the pipeline. If in the normal coarse of business they shut down a pipeline, which occurs routinely, while it is shut down with that pressure on it, if they close those 6 or 7 valves they have segmented the pipeline into very small increments and they can measure the pressure drop and if there is one, they investigate there was a pressure drop. Is it due to a valve leaking into the tank at Lansing terminal or is it due to the gasoline leaking from the pipeline somewhere. His point is this, if they conduct 24 hour remote surveillance of the operation of the pipeline and then they in effect pressure test it every time they shut down, there will not be any leaks occurring on the pipeline that will be of a magnitude that could readily place gasoline into the City of Lansing's drinking water. Also, he is not sure that they need to be as concerned about that possibility as they seem to be because currently there has been over 112 locations within the City of Lansing where underground storage tanks have leaked and none of those has resulted in the contamination of the city's water aquifer. Mr. Smith said from the time that there was a pressure variance and they have a potential leak, what kind of a time frame would they be talking about and their secondary question to that, are there other things that could give a false reading? In other words, would there be other reasons that there would be pressure fluctuation that might not be a leak, that may lead them to assume that they did not have a leak but it is some other problem so there is some hesitance in addressing the leak? Mr. Cole said they are required by Office of Pipeline Safety regulation to inspect the valves and any temperature and pressure transmitters on a 6 month basis and repair any problems associated with those inspections. For example, a pressure transmitter could give a false indication, however, it is not likely to show a pressure drop if one was not occurring. It could show an inaccurate pressure, but if that pressure remains static then there is no seepage of product from the pipeline. They will respond immediately to anything that they believe indicates to them that there is any kind of leakage from the pipe. They are not in the business of spilling gasoline, they don't get paid for spilling gasoline. Mr. Smith said that he just mentioned a 6 month interval in the inspection of the valves. Is he to understand that it is the kind that they would detect a pressure difference or is the pressure constantly monitored? PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 16, 2002, Page 12 Mr. Cole said the pressure and the status of the valve is constantly monitored. It is a physical on-site inspection that is required every 6 months. Ms. Foster said he said that when they are going to close the valves they are going to leave a remaining pressure of 500-800 pounds of pressure and they would test it with that to see if there was a pressure drop. Would they ever test it at full pressure with the valves closed? Mr. Cole said no, not with product they would not, no. Ms. Foster said she just wondered if something that leaks at that high pressure they would not be doing it at a stopped point. Mr. Cole said if they do that when the pipe is shut down, there will be times when it will be shut down with diesel fuel in the line. There will be times when it will be shut down with gasoline in the line. Diesel fuel leaks from the pipeline easier than gasoline leaks from the pipe line if they are talking about a seepage occurrence. Because of that fact, they would have multiple products during this test it is not likely that any type of small leak would ever be undetected for a significant period of time. Ms. Foster said it still would not be tested at that high pressure. Mr. Cole said the reason they do not do it at full pressure is this. The pressure at which the pipeline will be rated to operate is 1440 psi. That pressure exists at the pump in Stockbridge and the closer they get to the Lansing distribution terminal the lower the pressure is. So, by the time it reaches Lansing the pressure is likely to be 800-900 pounds. So in a normal routine shutdown, they stop the pump in Stockbridge and close the valve. As the pressure begins to leave the pipeline at a point in which they want to catch the remaining pressure then they close the valve at the Lansing terminal. They never leave it shut down with the full 1440 pounds of pressure because that would require them to pump against a closed valve in Lansing and that is not a good practice. Ms. Foster said if they got turned down on this, what is their viable options? Mr. Cole said he does not know what the future would hold if they were not successful in getting a permit to construct this particular line. He knows that one option is to use the existing one. That is not a very good option. He can not tell the Board what the Board of Directors at Wolverine Pipeline would choose to do in the future. All he can say is that they would recommend to them that they not spend millions in searching for PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 16, 2002, Page 13 the illusive perfect pipeline ramp, because it does not exist. In this current route that they are proposing it is as good a route as they would find anywhere in this area to serve this area. Mr. Ruge said in testimony before the MPSC, Mr. Charles Green, Real Estate Appraiser, he testified that there were two possible alternative routes that would avoid any heavily populated areas. Have they checked into these possible routes? Mr. Cole said during the first case, there were several alternative routes identified and they have looked at those alternative routes. The MPSC have looked at those alternative routes. Some of those alternative routes are very close to or similar to the routes that Mr. Green identified and it is Wolverine's opinion and it is the opinion of MPSC staff engineer that this route is superior compared to any of the alternatives that Wolverine or the MPSC studied. Mr. Green is an appraiser, so he is very good at finding out who owns property and where a pipeline route could be, but he falls short of being an expert of actually analyzing whether or not a route he picks is a real viable alternative to the one they have suggested. Mr. Frederick said they brought up earlier Mr. Hills e-mail that they received about the spill down near Jackson. The reason he asks this is he is looking at this pipeline now as something that is going to go in brand new, but it is going to be 65 years old after he is gone and presumably if pipelines get older they become more likely to have some kind of a problem be it maintenance or a leak or whatever. He would like to know what his company has learned from the experience with the Jackson spill and what would they do differently today if they had that same accident? Mr. Cole said with regard to the way they responded, they probably would not do very much differently than what they did. They responded effectively as well as Blackman Township and Jackson County Sheriff's Department and USPPA, the Michigan State Police. Anyone who has some responsibility for response to an incident like that responded timely and effectively and they were the first to realize the incident and they shut the pipeline down immediately and they responded immediately. In regard to their response they would not do anything differently. If they look at the way they compensated people who were asked to evacuate from their homes, they went above and beyond a legal requirement of a company such as theirs to reimburse them for any possible loss that they could have suffered as a result of that evacuation. The only thing that concerns him about that is that it does not satisfy some people. So, he does not know that there is anything that they would do differently, when they look at the fact that there are a very small amount of law suits compared to the fact that 1300 people were evacuated, he guesses that PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 16, 2002, Page 14 you would have to say that they did the right thing. His problem is that they don't seem to be getting credit for doing the right thing. But, if they watch the news, most businesses don't get credit for doing the right thing. With regard to the beginning of the question. Mr. Frederick is right, this pipeline will be 65 years old and when it is 65 years old it will be in far better condition than a current 65 year old pipeline. That is because of the fact that industry has learned a lot and regulators have learned a lot and so now they know more about how to build a pipeline and maintain a pipeline and the regulatory body understands more about what to require of them so they properly maintain the pipeline. So, comparing this pipeline 65 years from now to the one that currently exists to the east of them that is 65 years old today is an apples and oranges comparison. They are not comparable. Mr. Frederick said earlier he mentioned the valves that they use to close to perform the tests. From the material that he has read that was presented during the MPSC hearing, he understands that those valves are above the 48 inches of depth of the ground that the pipeline is buried. What he would like to know then, is since those valves are above ground they seem to be particularly vulnerable to terrorists attack. A year ago that would not have been as much a concern as it is now, so he would like to know what their company will do to protect those valves and potentially there could be a bomb big enough to blow up the pipeline 48 inches in the ground, although that is fairly deep. At any rate he would like to know what terrorist protection they have put into the project? Mr. Cole said they have worked with MDOT to pick locations for those valves that are above ground so that they minimize any potential for traffic running off 1-96 to be able to come in contact with the valves and they will also fence the valves and lock the fence so that it is relatively inaccessible. They are also on a heavily traveled highway so they are constantly in the vision of somebody, so they don't anticipate that a terrorist would find them to be a very attractive target and when they consider that terrorists are doing these things to make a spectacular point or to cause severe disruptions, they don't necessarily accomplish either one of those by blowing up an in ground pipeline. They would more likely focus on a storage area for petroleum products like Lansing terminal or like the refinery where it is produced. With regard to what happens if they actually did blow up the pipeline. The pipeline can be repaired and back in service within hours if not days and once it is repaired and back in service they go about the task of cleaning up anything that is spilled from the pipeline. While they can't guarantee them that a terrorist will never target a pipeline, they also can't tell them that they consider it to be a very high risk in compared to all the other targets that they would find around a city like Lansing that a terrorist might like to go after. PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 16, 2002, Page 15 Mr. Frederick asked if anyone, including his company ever considered moving the terminal that the pipeline would terminate from North Lansing around to somewhere in the south so they would not have to build this pipeline or use the existing one at all? Mr. Cole said Wolverine Pipeline Company does not own the distribution terminal. It is owned by one of their shippers. The distribution terminal is a very expensive facility to construct and it also needs to be permitted, so the short answer to the question is no that has not been considered and he would doubt very seriously if Marathon National Petroleum Company would consider it. Mr. Ruff said Mr. Cole mentioned after Mr. Frederick's question that their response in Blackman Township was timely and effective and that the pipeline was shut down immediately. How many gallons of fuel was spilled and what size pipeline was that? Mr. Cole said that pipeline was a 16' in diameter pipeline, which it is larger than the pipeline proposed here. The remotely controlled valves on that pipeline were approximately 40 miles apart. In relationship to this route within the City of Lansing they are talking 5 miles apart. Once they can close the valves that greatly diminishes the amount of product that can flow from the pump, however it will still leak out of the pipe by gravity until other manually operated valve is closed. The closest manually operated valve was 20 miles away. They did all the valve closings and reduced the amount of product that was leaking from the pipeline. . .They shut the pipeline down within minutes and they had all the manual valves closed within an hour of the actual spill. The amount that they reported to the National Response Center, which was an estimate at the time because they had no way to measure it, was 71,400 gallons. The amount that actually was lost from their pipeline by their meter measurement was like 55,000 gallons. The majority of the gasoline was picked up within the first 24 hours and more than 80% of it was eventually picked up and the difference between what was picked up and what wasn't was a significant of it evaporated because the weather was identical to what it is today. The fact that the weather was identical today is why they evacuated to so many people. They hauled off 400 dump truck loads of dirt to a landfill just so that they could make sure that the gasoline did not remain in the environment within Blackman Township. They are continuing to work with the MDEQ to make sure that the drain that the gasoline followed on its way to the Grand River is eventually 100% cleaned up to the satisfaction of the MDEQ, not to the satisfaction of Wolverine Pipe Line. Draft to Clerk April 12 2002 Approved 2002 To Clerk 002 Minutes of the Regular Meeting LANSING PLANNING BOARD . 7:00 p.m., Tenth Floor, Council Chambers Lansing City Hall Tuesday, April 2, 2002 7 _ OPENING SESSION The meeting was called to order at 7:03 P.M. by Chairman Frederick. A. Roll call. Present: Frederick, Foster, Keene, Patrick, Smith Ru B. Staff Attending: Ruff, Stachowiak, Rieske, Wee. ge. C. Excused absence: Ms. Cordill. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA It was moved by Ms. Keene, su ported by Mr. Ruge to agenda. On a voice vote, the op on carried unanimously 6 approve) the revised ( 0). 3- COMMUNICATIONS A. Letter from Ms. Katherine Kennell supporting the improvements NCU-1-2002. for B. Letter from the North Lansing Community Association, submitted Ms. Beverly Miller, stating the association would like to purchase the Comfort Station property for a nominal fee of$1.00 and how the association has occupied, maintained and improved the property since 1980. 4. HEARINGS A. Z-5-2002, 1500 E. Cavanaugh Road, "I" Heavy Industrial Distr' "G-2" Wholesale District and "H" Light Industrial District Ict to This is a request by Kevin VanErman to rezone a 13.968 acre parcel located at 1500 E. Cavanaugh Road, west of Aurelius Rd., im ediatel east of the Penn. Central Railroad right-of-way and more particularl y described as: y W Y OF W % OF SE 114 LYING E OF MC RR R/VV, EXC COM SEC CEN, TH S 185.5 FT TO MC RR R/W, SE'LY ALONG MC RR R/W 268 FT TO OPEN DRAIN, N 4DEG 50MIN E ALONG SAID DRAIN TO E&W 1/4 LINE, W 119 FT TO BEG; SEC 34 T4N R2W PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 2, 2002, Page 2 from "I" Heavy Industrial District to "G-2" Wholesale District and "H" Light Industrial District. The applicant proposes to rezone the north 3.51 acres to "G-2" Wholesale District and the remaining 10.45 acres to "H" Light Industrial District. The purpose of the request is to allow for the creation of small industrial park. Sue Stachowiak gave a brief overview. Richard Cooley, representing the applicant, stated that the Planning staff recommended approval of the special land use permit. Public Service approved the site plan for the private road and utility construction and also approved the special land use permit which would allow construction of buildings in the flood plain. He stated that last fall when the Planning Board dealt with the special land use issue, there were concerns for potential environmental hazzards to the water resource of Sycamore Creek based on the allowable uses in the heavy industrial district in the current zoning ordinance. He stated that City Council had the same concerns when the special land use issue was brought before them at the January 2002 City Council meeting. Even though heavy industrial zoning does comply with the Master Plan, the applicant, Mr. VanErman, acknowledged these concerns as legitimate. He stated that after several meetings with Mr. Ruff, EDC, architects and marketing contacts, Mr. VanErman carefully considered and electively consented to a change in the zoning district of the property to a lesser district in order to address the concerns voiced by the Planning Board and City Council. During the discussions, staff had proposed a "G-2" Wholesale District as being most closely aligned with the proposed uses for this business park. He stated that this would address the Planning Board and City Council concerns by eliminating a lot of the uses that would be allowed under the district, but that it would eliminate several strong perspective users that the applicant and EDC anticipated would want to locate to Lansing. It was the desire on behalf of the City of Lansing as well as Mr. VanErman to accommodate the GM suppliers and the efforts to keep the GM plants local in Lansing. It should be noted that EDC would like to see this property designated as an industrial development district or be part of one based on the intentions to try to locate the suppliers in the City. After all these considerations, Mr. VanErman came up with this proposal in case Z-5-2002, which involved the two districts mentioned ("G-2" Wholesale District being on the Cavanaugh Road frontage, about 3 Y2 acres, and "H" Light Industrial on the remaining 10 Y2 acres) to accommodate the possibility, and the good prospect of the GM supplier. These zoning PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 2, 2002, Page 3 districts would allow the uses, including the office warehousing that put forth before, to range from warehousing and distribution all the way up to some light industrial uses if processing, packaging and assembling of items inside a building. With all the internal checks and balances available in this process to the City of Lansing regarding the Planning staff and Public Service input during the site plan review, the special land use permit processes involving MDEQ, the regulations regarding flood plain, water ways, wetlands and air quality, the input from the Ingham County Drain Commissioner that was sought by City Council, all the various Federal regulations and also the regulations that the lender involved in this project is going to have of Mr. VanErman, he believes that the zoning pattern that has been proposed with the combination of"G-2" Wholesale district and "H" Light Industrial district and the resulting uses in these districts would find acceptable to the Planning Board and City Council. Seeing no one else wishing to speak on this matter, Mr. Frederick referred Z-5-2002 to the next Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting to be held on Wednesday, April 10, 2002 at 316 N. Capitol Avenue. B. Z-6-2002, Willoughby Road, "A" Residential District to "DM-2" Residential District This is a request by John E. Sabty to rezone a vacant 62 acre parcel from "A" Residential District (single family) to "DM-2" Residential District (multiple family). The property is located north of Willoughby Rd. and south of 1-96 in the southeast 1/4 of Section 9, T3N-R2W, City of Lansing and more particularly described as: The East % of the Southeast 114 of the Southwest 114 and the Southwest 114 of the Southeast 114 lying South of the southerly right of way line of/-96 Section 9 T3N-R2W, City of Lansing, Ingham County, MI., except the West 100.0 feet. The purpose of the request is to allow for the creation of an 850 unit multi- family development. Sue Stachowiak gave a brief overview. Mr. Ruge inquired about the City's plans for the property and how the City gained the property. Ms. Stachowiak stated she wasn't sure and that Mr. Sabty looked into purchasing the property from the City but for whatever reason decided not to include it as part of his request. Ms. Stachowiak PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 2, 2002, Page 4 explained that there is a cell phone tower possibly located on the triangular parcel portion to the north of the property. Mr. Ruge stated that the report indicated the City sewers are not sufficient to handle a development of this size. Ms. Stachowiak stated that this was the statement that the Public Service Department had made regarding Z-8-2001 and that the Public Service Department is currently still making this comment. There was a general discussion on how resolve the situation. John Sabty, resident of 140 E. Second Street, Flint, stated that he was representing the owner of the property who is based out of New York City. Some of the concerns that were presented he has tried to address with some of the studies that were required from the last proposal. He stated that the storm sewer issue was readily resolvable because of an existing storm drain and that an older storm drain is still located on the property. He was under the understanding that the existing sanitary sewer system has no capacity at all. He stated that there is a plan in process that the department is working through to determine how it can deliver additional capacity, not only for a development such as this, but for other developments as well. He stated that depending on the zoning change request, the company could not begin until the question about the capacity issue had been addressed. He stated that the company is currently incorporating a certain amount of density into their plan for a future expansion of the sewer system that is required for that area. With the traffic inpact study, he wasn't aware that another department had requested additional information. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the Transportation Department had not commented on anything. Mr. Sabty stated that with the traffic flow on Willoughby Road and the way the road is designed with the front yard setbacks and the gravel on the sides of each road, there is probably room for expansion of the road in and around the company's development. He stated at this point, the company is trying to determine an acceptable level for density so the company can move forward with a plan that would encompass acceptable sewer, road, storm drainage, etc. The company is at a starting point and cannot begin because there is not a level of density that has been approved. He mentioned a site plan and wondered if a copy had been give to the Board members. He stated the site plan was a general concept of what the building would look like. The site plan does not show elevations. He stated that these are not Army barracks type facilities that PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 2, 2002, Page 5 would be built and that these are common structures with what is going on throughout the United States. These buildings are three stories with balconies and pitched roofs and would have a colonial type look. He stated that the company has tried to encompass the wetland areas in order to make it an expansion of the existing park that the City owns. In reference to the City's property, he stated that the property is Parcel B and that it is a dedicated park that is owned by the City of Lansing. The company's only interest with that property was to help preserve it as a park because it would be a viable buffer zone between the single family neighborhood and the company's property. One of the questions was to trade some of the company's wetlands for the park. He stated that there is a formula which is a 2-to-1 ratio where the company could purchase the property, for every one of the company's acres it would be two of the park's acres. He stated that the company could put money into the park to help preserve it rather than having the park as an open space. He stated that the company's interest is to leave the park as is and if anything, maybe upgrade it so it would be more of a user friendly park for the neighborhood and for the company's development. Christine Timmon, resident of 339 E. St. Joseph Apt. #3, stated that she is representing citizens who are concerned about the developers coming into the City and the developments where the City of Lansing has about 500 houses that are in a blight status but qualify for rehabilitation under Public Act 27. This was recently done and signed by the Governor. The original bill is House Bill 4028 and it states that all cities must rehab all blighting properties whether red tagged or not in 42 days to 119 days. She is concerned that when developers come into the City, they don't take into consideration how they can really help. She stated that Mr. Sabty needs to ride around Lansing and see all the houses he can get for a song and a dance. There are a couple of properties on Lenawee Street, 505 W. Lenawee and the property next door. She stated that there is a developer right now who is turning these blighted properties into two new single family dwellings. While the developers come in and build new developments, all the blighted properties continue to be ignored. She stated it is her belief that under the new Public Act 27, if anyone is injured on a blighted property and they haven't been notified by the City, the City could be liable for it. She questioned why developers won't try to help the City to fill in the blanks with these blighted properties and turn them into one family units rather than building apartments and multiple dwellings, leaving all the PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 2, 2002, Page 6 City's good housing go to waste. The government is now saying that if you can prove that you have the ability to take care of a blighted property, you can send a letter to the City of Lansing specifying a particular property qualifies under Public Act 27 as a blighted property. If they don't want to fix it within the 119 days then they must sell the property to whomever for forfeit by eminent novae. She hopes Mr. Sabty will take it to heart and find out where these properties are located and help the City reestablish itself as a city with some single family dwellings. Charlene Decker, resident of 2711 Pleasant Grove Road, stated that she is concerned about the dedicated parcel of land that is a park owned by the City of Lansing and the trading of park land. She stated that the property is a dedicated park and that it would involve the residents of Lansing. As a resident of many years, she chose Lansing because of the beautiful green space, pass of space and water ways. She stated that the parks are an essence of Lansing and that too many things go out as a negative by people about this city. We do have beautiful parks and river front and she wants these treated with great delicacy when you talk about anything being put away that is dedicated. Belinda Fitzpatrick, resident of 224 S. Holmes Street, stated that she wore her shirt that reflects Stop Eminent Domain Abuse and that she received the shirt from the Institute for Justice, which is a public interest law firm in Washington, D.C. She stated that eminent domain forfeiture is unconstitutional and a violation of the 51h Amendment. She also would prefer to see properties rehabilitated over land development. She stated that when the developments occur, the City needs to evaluate whether or not these developments will encourage the rehabilitation of other properties. She is also concerned about the park land and the compromise of the park land. Seeing no one else wishing to speak on this matter, Mr. Frederick referred Z-6-2002 to the next Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting to be held on Wednesday, April 10, 2002 at 316 N. Capitol Avenue. C. NCU-1-2002, 934 Clark Street, Request for Substitution and Class A Status for a Nonconformity This is a request by ARQ Inc. for a substitution of a nonconforming use and Class A status for the property located at 934 Clark Street. The applicant proposes to make approximately $50,000 in improvements to PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 2, 2002, Page 7 the subject building in order to change its use from a printing business to an office that provides internet services. The subject property is currently zoned "B" Residential and is nonconforming for parking and use. Sue Stachowiak gave a brief overview. Mr. Ruge stated that he visited the site and found a strange looking building in a residential neighborhood. There was a general discussion regarding the prior business activity of the building. Mr. Ruge inquired about the nonconforming use and if granted, would there be required buffering around the outside edge of the property. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the Board could make the conditions of improvements. Mr. Ruge inquired about whether or not the vacant lot to the north of the property was included. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the vacant lot it not included in the request. Dan Judd, 2875 Northwind Suite 205-D, stated that he is the owner of ARQ, Incorporated. He stated that the empty lot next to the building had a building on the property and was bought by the prior owner, Lansing Lithographers, and that it was part of the sale. There was a house on the property that at some point was condemned and then demolished a few months ago. He stated that the company is not sure of the finalization of the sale of the building so that it could be used as an office. The company would like to have some green space or maybe expand to allow for more parking. The company currently has five employees and at the rate of adding one employee per year, the building may only allow up to ten employees. At that time, the company may move to a larger facility or make use of the other (telephone hubs) ???. As far as maintenance of the building, the roof, chimney and interior plumbing are in disrepair, and the offices would need some minor painting as well. Mr. Ruge inquired about the use of computers in the building. Mr. Judd clarified that there would be computers in the building and that the company is very quiet. The company is a very low traffic business with customers or web site designers visiting every couple of days. Currently the company is doing off-site visits. PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 2, 2002, Page 8 Mr. Ruge inquired about an air conditioning system because of the amount of computers being used in the building. Mr. Judd stated that there are three air conditioning units in the building that are currently in working order and that these units would be more than sufficient for the company's needs. Mr. Ruge inquired if the company would need a special type of telephone system. Mr. Judd stated that a fiber DS-3 line would be added. He stated that contact with Ameritech has already been established and that Ameritech would have to pull the channel which is currently 1400 yards from the access point. Ameritech has informed Mr. Judd that this would not be a large undertaking. He stated that the company has a DS-3 line at their current location. Seeing no one else wishing to speak on this matter, Mr. Frederick referred NCU-1-2002 to the next Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting to be held on Wednesday, April 10, 2002 at 316 N. Capitol Avenue. D. Ordinance Amendments, Front Yard Setbacks and Accessory Structures The front yard setbacks apply to all the residential districts except the "DM-4" residential district. The "DM-4" residential district is the highest density district and primarily involves high rise type developments. These standards didn't apply to this district as they did to the other districts. The accessory buildings and structures involves the larger lot sizes having larger garage sizes in proportion to the lot. Sue Stachowiak gave a brief overview. Mr. Smith questioned the architectural compatibility requirement. He stated that the additions should be compatible with architectural scale and materials of the existing building and surrounding neighborhoods as determined by the Planning Office. He questioned who would make the final decision as to what is "architecturally compatible with surrounding buildings." Mr. Ruff stated that with the idea of a compatible setback, the Planning Office is looking at trying to maintain neighborhood appearance in respect to style. There was a general discussion about the language and final decisions of the setbacks. PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 2, 2002, Page 9 Mr. Frederick gave input on the Board of Zoning Appeals related situations. Christine Timmon, resident of 339 E. St. Joseph Apt. #3, stated that she has worked with Mr. Ruff in the past on amendments, variances and gravel driveways for some residents and not for others and that it sounds arbitrary. She also stated that it sounds like the City is giving more leeway towards the owners of the properties. She stated that Public Act 27 reflects that with these ordinances that you do, if the fines and fees on them are what it causing the house to be in a blighted state or abandoned because the owner cannot pay the fines and fees, then you cannot use arbitrary decisions. She stated that Public Act 27 protects home owners from arbitrary decisions. The City cannot arbitrarily continue to tell the owners how to fix their property, add fines on the property that cannot be paid and then have the house boarded. The only way the City can do this is if a person builds their property and the City does not approve the changes, the City will have to pay to have the property fixed. Charlene Decker, resident of 2711 Pleasant Grove Road, stated that she gets a little nervous when people start talking about compatibility, conformity, and whether or not someone likes a natural fence. She likes individuality. She stated her house is hers as long as it does not become a danger to society. She also stated that there are enough complications with the City's current ordinances and that these ordinances are being turned into a criminal process. She considers the City's fines out of line and stated that having one person make the ultimate decision does make her nervous. Belinda Fitzpatrick, resident of 224 S. Holmes Street, stated that it is hard to balance the rights of an individual in the community verses the rights of the community or rights of other individuals in the community. Before the City resorts to using the law and the rule of law for fines, fees and ordinances, the City should try to raise public appreciation regarding the street scape and architecture. She stated that you can ruin a neighborhood by not coordinating things and that the way to approach the issue is not through the law but through increased awareness. Beverly Miller, resident of 413 Pearl Street, questioned if accessary garages and storage buildings must be consistent with principle structures and color, architecture and materials, this would mean an owner could not build a concrete garage or wooden structured home. She stated that the garage and house would have to be in contrast with each other and that PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 2, 2002, Page 10 she wondered what happened for the City to go to this extreme. Mr. Frederick commented that a number of applications were brought before the Board of Zoning Appeals for variances and that this was the initiative behind the modification of these ordinances. There was a general discussion regarding the building structure and colors of homes. She stated that her home is over one hundred years old and that it is Victorian with gables. Her garage is very simple but does not match her house. She stated that the City should be able to mix materials, color and structures. Seeing no one else wishing to speak on this matter, Mr. Frederick referred the Ordinance Amendments to the next Zoning and Ordinance Committee meeting to be held on Wednesday, April 10, 2002 at 316 N. Capitol Avenue. 5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE John Pollard, resident of 1718 Blair Street, stated that he is opposed to the marketing and selling of the Thelma Osteen Comfort Street Station. He stated that the Parks and Recreation Department did not realize that this property belonged to them until the lease expired for the North Lansing Community Association. He is a firm believer in the Charter that says no park, recreation, cemetery or water front property will be sold without the vote of the people whether the property is dedicated or designated. He stated that the Park Board on February 20, 2002 voted 3-2 and stated that the Park Board violated the Open Meeting Act because the Board denied the public the right to speak after two people completed their verbal comments. He stated that the Park Land Policy Resolution of December 10, 1979 created the 1981 Inventory List and that the Land Policy Act explains the development, disposal of and encroachment on park property. He stated that the object of any such sale or transfer should be with the purpose of improving the park system of the City of Lansing and not for the benefit of private development or interest. Such proposed disposal should be reviewed by the Park Board, Planning Board then with the recommendation to the Mayor to make sure it is at City Council before they act on it. He stated the key here was not for the benefit of private development and that this is his understanding of the Act 285 review. He believes the North Lansing Community Association should have the first right of refusal if the property is sold. This building was built in 1914-1916 and is one of the few Georgian-American architectural styles left in the City of Lansing. Between 1975 and 1979 the NLCA saved this building from demolition. The City PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 2, 2002, Page 11 of Lansing met with the NLCA and was able to have this building and other buildings listed on the national register. Then the City of Lansing met with the NLCA and applied for Federal CDBG money to renovate the building. In order for the NLCA to keep receiving Federal Grant money, they had to agree to assume all responsibility for costs of interior renovations to bring the building up to code requirements, utility costs, maintenance repairs, liability and insurance which have totaled over$50,000. He stated that the City of Lansing has not put any money into the building since the date of purchase. He also stated that people should be talking about the history of the building, the ordinances, Land Policy Acts and how the City could keep this building. The NLCA has kept this building. The Parks and Recreation Department cannot not afford to keep the building and there is no staff for the building. He stated that the NLCA should be given a long term lease and that if the property has to be sold, it should go to the NLCA or it will go for the vote of the people. Charlene Decker, resident of 2711 Pleasant Grove Road, stated that she had been invited to the Comfort Station Christmas party and that it was the most beautiful, simplistic and spiritual Christmas party. The gifts were purchased by the North Lansing Community Association members who have kept the building upgraded all these years. Those in the community in north Lansing contribute so much not in words but in actions. The residents have made the community live and breath and this is what the residents want. She stated that she has problems with some of the neighborhood associations decreeing things that not everyone in the community is able to vote on but one would think they had voted. She loves the City of Lansing and she doesn't feel that she belongs on the southwest side. She belongs to the whole of Lansing and so does everyone else. The Comfort Station is very important to her and she is concerned about whose hands it would be best kept. The NLCA has taken care of the building year after year and has nurtured it and no one in the City has ever commented on the work that had been done. The NLCA rehabilitated the building on their own without asking the City for money. If anyone has decency, honesty and integrity for Lansing, they would not take this building away from the NLCA because the organization has earned the right to keep the building. Brian Smith, resident of 1007 Woodbine, stated that he is the Chairman for the group, Citizens for a Better Lansing and that this group has the City in the Appeals Court over the Genesee Park case. He is also affiliated with the Home Town Happenings TV Show that is on every Wednesday night, cable access, Channel 16 from 10:30 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. He stated that tonight's Planning Board meeting will be on aired on the station April 10, 2002 with the deliberations regarding the Comfort Station issue. He urged the Planning Board to make the right choice whether it is giving the North Lansing Community Association a long PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 2, 2002, Page 12 term lease of the building or sell it to them for $1.00. He wants the Planning Board to reject the Act 285 Review because the Comfort Station property is a dedicated park property and it cannot be sold without a vote of the people. He was told by an Assistant City Attorney that the word "dedicated" means what the Lansing Codified Ordinances says it means and that these are found on the internet. He stated that "dedication" means the intentional appropriation of land by the owner to public use and that the property was intentionally appropriating the Comfort Station to public use. He read from the City Charter: "The most significant changes specifically delineate the rolls and the authority of the Mayor, the Council, the City Boards and City Departments assigned clear line through accountability and responsibility to each and establish safe guards which protects citizens against the misuse of authority." On the next page, he stated that the citation is very clear and that "this proposed Charter requires a vote by the people prior to the sale of any park, recreational, cemetery or river front property, all other property purchased or sold by the City with an assessed value $50, 000 or more will be subject to a public hearing prior to any purchase or sale." He stated that the Act 285 review is a blatant misuse of City authority and that under the Act 285 review process, he inquired about whether there are any parks in the City of Lansing that would require a vote of the Electorate before being sold. He stated that no one at the Parks Board could answer this question and that he would appreciate it if someone from the Planning Board could answer the question. He has followed this case since it originated in November 2001 and that he spent three hours in the library researching the history of the Comfort Station from 1913-1968. At the Parks Board meeting on February 20, 2002 there was a 3-2 vote for the review and that the facilitator, Mr. Wilbur Howard, did not participate in any votes until the motion was favorable for what Mr. Jemerson and Mayor's Assistant Bob Johnson. Everything that was helpful for the North Lansing Community Association was a 2-2 vote and Mr. Howard totally abstained from voting. The NLCA has had the building for 20 years with each lease being 5 years. He questioned why the Act 285 review now has to be done and why was it not questioned in 1987, 1992 and 1997 when the NLCA was given the 5 year leases. He stated that the NLCA is an example of an association that has been self sufficient, paid the bills for the property, and now are swept out on the streets. He encouraged the Planning Board Members to do the right thing, whether it is leasing the building to the NLCA for a long term lease or selling the property to them for $1.00. He asked the Planning Board members to send the right and correct message to Mr. Jemerson, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Howard and Mayor Hollister that the Planning Board does not believe in violating the City Charter. Belinda Fitzpatrick, resident of 224 S. Holmes Street, stated that there is a sense of community in the neighborhood surrounding the Comfort Station PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 2, 2002, Page 13 property. She also attended the Christmas Party that was held at the Comfort Station and that the spirit of the party and the energy of the building was wonderful. She stated that the building should be for community use and that it is a valuable asset to the community. She would prefer the City retain ownership of the property and that community property is best owned by the City and made available to the community. She stated that if the building would be sold, there should be a right of first refusal given to the North Lansing Community Association, and that the NLCA should have the right to purchase the property before it is offered to others. Considering the amount of investments put into the building by the NCLA and if the City were to sell the property, it would be unjust enrichment. "Unjust enrichment" is a legal term meaning somebody put so much work into something that they should be entitled to the fruit of their work, and if the City sold the property, the proceeds from the property should go to the NLCA to help them relocate. Even though there are other buildings, the Comfort Station holds a sentimental value to the NCLA. The NCLA is in love with and has a spiritual bond with the Comfort Station. The building holds a lot of emotional implications and to sell the property would tear apart the bond of the community. She stated that she did extensive research regarding Public Act 285. She gave an example of the case in Grand Rapids, Nash vs. Grand Rapids, where the people depended on state laws because the Charter did not address the issues. She stated that the state law says the City cannot sell a park without a vote of the Electorate, except for where the park is not required to be a park by the Master Plan. If the City relied on state law, a Master Plan review would be initiated pursuant to Public Act 285. The Charter is very similar in language to the State law. The beginning is the same stating, "A park property will not be sold without a vote of the people" but does not reflect a requirement by the Master Plan. She did extensive research at the City of Lansing Planning Office where she reviewed the Master Plan and a copy of the map. Under the Master Plan, she stated that there are no required parks in the City. Under the Public Act 285 Review, she concluded that there are no parks in the City that would require a vote of the Electorate before the property is sold because the City does not have a category specifying "required parks." The Master Plan does not list a requirement of"required parks." She encouraged the Board members not to sell the property and stated that if they choose to place the property for sale, have the property go before the vote of the Electorate. Edward Simmer, resident of 4245 W. Jolly Road, stated that he was the former Chairman of Citizens for a Better Lansing and that all the officers of the organization are against the sale of the Comfort Station. He was the individual PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 2, 2002, Page 14 who started a petition drive, after Ms. Osteen passed away, to have the Comfort Station named in her honor, and that over 500 people signed the petition before she was taken to her grave site. He stated that this is abomination and that this building contains a lot history. He was upset because the City wants to sell the property and he doesn't understand why. He was also upset because when he drove by the Comfort Station, the name on the building only reflected North Lansing and not the North Lansing Community Center. He stated that the same thing that happened to Genesee Park is happening to the Comfort Station and that he was the one who filed the law suit for Genesee Park and will file the law suit for the Comfort Station. He encouraged the Planning Board to do the right thing and sell the building to the North Lansing Community Association for $1.00. He stated that the NLCA should have the first opportunity. Sherry Shaw, resident of 403 Beaver Street, stated that she is the daughter of Ms. Thelma Osteen and that she has been a member of the North Lansing Community Association. She does not want to see the building sold and asked the Board to consider leasing the building to the NLCA. She stated that there are future plans to do more with the building and she questioned why the City wanted to do away with the rental property. The property will always be taken care of and with a lease, the City will also have the option to do something different with the building at a later time. Amy Hodgen, owner of a business at 416 N. Cedar Street, stated that she wanted to remind everyone who Thelma Osteen was, and that without Ms. Osteen, the City would not have the Dodge Mansion. When the Dodge Mansion was scheduled for demolition, Ms. Osteen single-handedly stood up and stopped the demolition and had to pay a $250.00 fine for mansion not being demolished. While Ms. Osteen was living, the Comfort Station flourished and provided different types of information about decisions, legal aid, etc. to the neighbors. She stated that the North Lansing Neighborhood Association is a beautiful group and that the building is also beautiful. She is not in favor of selling the Comfort Station. She stated that Ms. Osteen was a very sweet and powerful woman and that if she were still alive, she would not be happy with what is happening to the Comfort Station. Ms. Hodgen stated that all groups have disagreements and that the Comfort Station belongs to the NLCA. She indicated that the building is self-sufficient and that there are festivals and other events held at the Comfort Station. She stated that there are future plans for the building, with one of the plans including a club for the children. She hopes that the Board will remember Ms. Osteen and everything she had represented. She stated that the Comfort Station is one of the oldest buildings in the City, and that it would be a pity to sell the property for profit. She is in favor of the building being leased to the NLCA who will continue to maintain the building. She hopes that the Board will take the PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 2, 2002, Page 15 decision seriously because the Comfort Station is a beautiful building and the neighborhood does deserve to have it. Beverly Marsh, resident of 331 Harriet Avenue, stated that she is a daughter of Ms. Osteen and that from the beginning the Comfort Station was always taken care of. The North Lansing Community Association started the Thelma Osteen Youth Group but she is not sure if the youth will want to continue on in the future. She questioned the Board about a new lease for the NLCA and that the association has paid the taxes and maintained the building. She feels the property should go as a lease and not a sale, and that if the property is offered for sale, the NLCA should have the first right of refusal. She stated that the Board should consider all that her mother did for the organization and that the building still looks very nice. She stated that the building looks even better since it has been in the hands of the NLCA. She vowed that she would help take care of the problems that are within or without, whether in a court of law or done as human beings. The NLCA is about helping and caring for the community and the neighborhood. She stated that she will not bend and do things wrong to make someone happy and that the NLCA will go by rules and bylaws. There will not be any more secret meetings and as long as there is breath in her, she will be just like her mother. She wants peace and unity at the Comfort Station and everyone working towards what her mother had built, an association to help the people. She hopes the Board will take all this into consideration and that she would like to see the NLCA and their belongings back at the Comfort Station and fully functional. Becky Weck, resident of 213 Douglas Avenue, stated that she is a daughter of Ms. Osteen. She remembered attending the North Lansing Community Association meetings with her dad when her mother was alive and that her mother fought for what she thought was right. Her mother wanted to see the north end of Lansing become a better place. She stated that she was at the Comfort Station earlier. All the NLCA's belongings are out of the building, and the association's name had been taken off the building. The NLCA has no place to hold their meetings and that the building had been used in the past for dinners, funerals, meetings, and Christmas parties which included Christmas gifts for the less fortunate children. She wants the property referred to as the Thelma Osteen Comfort Station as it was dedicated to her mother in her honor. She remembered her mother walking the streets and pounding on doors. She stated that the Comfort Station is a gathering place for the community in the north end of the City and that the building should be kept in tact. She was frustrated because the NLCA had to hold their meeting outside the building on the streets. PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 2, 2002, Page 16 Beverly Miller, resident of 413 Pearl Street, stated that the North Lansing Community Association would like to purchase the property for a nominal sum of $1.00 and that the NLCA did meet the requirements for the 1980 Federal Grant that was secured to help rehabilitate the property. The NLCA agreed to pay all the costs that were not covered by the Federal Grant to bring the building up to code, and they paid for all interior renovations. From 1980 to present, the property has increased in value from $6,000 to $75, 000 according the City's survey. Every lease the NLCA has had with the City stated that the NCLA is to be responsible and pay all the utilities, maintenance, repairs and insurance. The NLCA has paid all the expenses without the help of grant and city subsidy monies. The NLCA is a volunteer group with no paid staff. Every lease has also stated that the property is intended to be cost free to the City of Lansing and to her knowledge, the City has expended no funds. She stated that Mr. Emil Winnicker (City of Lansing, Development Office ) explained to Ms. Miller that over the last 22 years, $3,000 had been spent on the building while the NLCA had leased the property. The NLCA occupied, maintained and improved this property from 1980 to March 2002 and on March 7, 2002, received a notice stating they had to find new space for their personal property and turn in all keys by March 28, 2002. There was misinformation about the NLCA not having to vacate the building and at a Committee of the Whole meeting on March 7, 2002 where Mr. Johnson, Chief of Staff, clearly stated that the NLCA had to move all their personal property and turn in the keys by March 28, 2002. She questioned the Board about the sale of the building. Mr. Ruff stated this is just an evaluation as to whether or not to sell the property and that this is not a decision to put the property up for sale. Mr. Ruff also stated that this is the information gathering. Ms. Miller stated that once the building is offered for sale and if the Board's recommendations go to the City Council, the City Council has to have a 2/3 vote in order to sell the property. The vote will not reflect where the building will go or whether or not the NLCA will be able to acquire the property. She questioned whether the property would be acquired by the Parks Department and if so, would the Parks Department lease the property to NLCA. She stated that if the building was going to be leased, it would have been leased to the NLCA by now. She stated that the Board's recommendations would make the difference as to whether or not the NLCA would be able to acquire the property. Christine Timmon, resident of 339 E. St. Joseph Apt. #3, stated that she has attended most of the meetings regarding the Comfort Station and that the North Lansing Community Association has moved all their belongings out of the building. She feels the City has its own plan for the property and that there is nothing anyone can do or say that will stop the City from doing what they want to do. She suggested to the citizens of Lansing to do the best they can and not spend a whole lot of money in attorney fees because once they have paid the PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 2, 2002, Page 17 fees they have already lost. She stated that these little issues can be handled and that it would only cost a person $30 to file a case in Circuit Court. Then the case would be held up for 3-5 years in court. She does not foresee the City returning the property to the NLCA and that there are a lot of blighted buildings in the City. She stated that the City may have to help the NLCA rehabilitate an old building if the NLCA could put out a certain amount of money. Ben Genns, resident of 1401 Center Street, stated that he has lived at this address his whole life and that he had grown up with the North Lansing Community Association in this area. Some of his earliest memories of Christmas were parties at the Comfort Station. On Monday, April 1, 2002, he was with his dad helping to move the last of the NLCA's belongings out of the Comfort Station. Looking at the empty hall, he remembered people visiting with one another and enjoying themselves not realizing that later they would leave and never see each other again. He stated that the NLCA has done more for this area than anyone else and that even though they did not produce numbers, the NLCA had an affect on the community. He asked the Board to do the NLCA a favor and give them the property. Seeing no one else wishing to address the Board, Mr. Frederick closed the public comment period. 6. RECESS was taken by the Board. 7. BUSINESS SESSION Mr. Frederick stated for the record that Ms. Foster arrived at 7:10 p.m. after role was taken and that she will be present for the duration of the meeting. A. Ms. Keene moved; seconded by Mr. Smith to approve the minutes of March 19, 2002 without corrections. On a voice vote, motion carried (6-0), the minutes of March 19, 2002 were APPROVED. B. Committee Reports 1. ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE, Mr. Ruge, Chair Next meeting, Wednesday, April 10, 2002 at 4:00 p.m. 316 N. Capitol Ave., Department Conference Room. PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 2, 2002, Page 18 2. URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, Ms. Patrick, Chair a. Act-27-2001, 313 E. Grand River Ave., Comfort Station, Market for Sale This is a request to consider whether the City should market the property for sale, or retain ownership. It is not to consider a specific offer to purchase the building. The application itself was submitted by the Development Office on behalf of the City. This Act 285 Review is a fact-finding report and investigation to help determine whether or not the City should continue owning the building. Information was gathered from the various agencies and departments of the City to determine any possible interest in the structure and comments from the public at the public hearing held by the Planning Board. Since the lease of the building by NLCA expired on 12-31-01, the Department of Parks and Recreation has requested that the Act 285 Review be conducted to market the property for sale and is recommending that the City dispose of the property by getting it out of public ownership. The property is zoned "F-V Commercial Zoning District which allows for a variety of uses, including office and commercial use. A "private club, fraternal organization or lodge hall" is also included in the various "principal uses" permitted in the zoning district. The types of uses that are possible in the "F-1" District are attached. The building is located on a relatively small parcel with the building taking up most of the property. On-site parking is therefore not available. A public alley exists along the north side of the building. A public parking lot, available at Grand River and Turner Street, provides plenty of parking for this commercial district. The site includes equipment behind the Comfort Station which is used under license by Sharp Technology for a radio system and antennae to control the storm water system for that area. This license for such equipment nominal fee will have to continue on with any possible sale of this property. The two-story building is located within the North Lansing Historic Commercial District on the National Register of Historic Places. Such a designation does not protect the PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 2, 2002, Page 19 building from demolition, but does afford it some tax incentives for rehabilitation through preservation tax credits. A public hearing was held by the Lansing Planning Board on 11/20/01 at which eleven members of the public spoke. The Parks Board took its action on 2/20/02 "to support the (Parks & Rec) staff's recommendation to continue to proceed with the Department of Planning and Neighborhood Development's Act 285 review for the sale of the Comfort Station." Staff recommends approval of Act-27-01, the marketing for sale of the Comfort Station at 313 E. Grand River Avenue, zoned "F-V Commercial with the understanding that: a. The building be sold to community group or groups for broad based community use, reserving historic facade easements in perpetuity, and a reverter clause to ensure that community use will continue with the building. b. The City should manage the property for community use until time of sale. C. The license for Sharp Technologies' equipment will need to be accommodated in any transaction regarding the property. Staff also suggests that the name of the building remain as "Thelma Joyce Osteen Comfort Station" as designated by City Council Resolution. In Committee it was moved, seconded and carried unanimously (3-0) to recommend approval of Act-27-01, 313 E. Grand River Ave., Comfort Station, Market for Sale. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows: Ms. Patrick made a motion, seconded by Ms. Keene to recommend approval of Act-27-01, 313 E. Grand River Ave., Comfort Station, Market for Sale with conditions. PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 2, 2002, Page 20 There was a general discussion regarding the Comfort Station being open for public use and the recommendation of a possible reverter clause to ensure that community use occurs with the conditions thereunder. Mr. Ruge stated that the North Lansing Community Association managed and occupied the Comfort Station for more than 20 years and questioned why there was no recommendation to sell the property to the NLCA for their continued use. There was a general discussion regarding the possible sale of the building and the community use of the building. There was a general discussion regarding the City's liability for the Comfort Station. Mr. Phil Dorland, Deputy Director of Parks and Recreation, gave a brief overview of which parks are staffed. He stated that the director of Parks and Recreation is taking the position that he does not want to pull the Comfort Station back into the City's budgetary process and have to maintain or provide paid staff for the building. Ms. Foster inquired about the leasing of park property, and the liability issue. There was a general discussion about the City's involvement in maintaining the Comfort Station. A general discussion ensued about the distribution of the City's community centers and if there was a center located near the Comfort Station to help fulfill the needs of the community. Mr. Dorland stated that Gyer Park and the Turner-Dodge house are nearby. Mr. Ruge inquired about why the Parks and Recreation Department wants to divest themselves of the Comfort Station property. He would feel more comfortable if the City would have a plan in place to keep the property for community use before action would be taken by the Board. Ms. Foster asked if the liability and the burden of the Comfort Station were lifted off the City, would the Committee feel the same. Mr. Smith felt that as a Board they were being asked to provide an instrument for what appears to him to be, on a personal level, a political issue. He stated that he doesn't know all the history except for what was said tonight. The facts that were presented to the Board appear to be a landlord/tenant type of situation. The lease has expired and the landlord has chosen not to renew the lease, which is the landlord's prerogative. Notwithstanding the efforts that the North Lansing Community Association has put into the Comfort Station and without having detailed information about what really and truly is motivating this request, the Board can only act based on the facts presented to the Board. From a legal point of view, if the City does not want to renew the lease, there is not a law that forces the City to renew the lease. Morally, maybe there is an obligation. PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 2, 2002, Page 21 Ms. Keene stated that based on the fact that the Board does have additional information tonight which was not presented at the Committee meeting, and that because a number of Board members have questions, she moves to table Act-27-01. Ms. Keene made a motion, seconded by Mr. Ruge to table Act-27-01, 313 E. Grand River Ave., Comfort Station, Market for Sale. On a voice vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. TABLED. b. Act-6-2002, SE Corner of Allegan & Townsend, Removal of Two BWL Easements The applicant, Boji Group L.L.C., requests that the City vacate two BWL easements to facilitate a proposed new office building and parking deck project. The two easements were for electric, water and steam facilities serving the Accident Fund of Michigan at 232 S. Capitol Avenue and former YWCA building at 217 Townsend Street (see attached graphics for specific locations). The YWCA was established in 1927. The building was demolished in December 2000. An Act 285 is required to vacate the easements for the parcels described in the attachments, with final action by City Council. According to Public Service, the vacation of the two BWL easements will have no impact on their services. City Council held a public hearing on April 16, 2001 for a Special Land Use Permit (SLU-2-01) to construct an off- street parking lot at 217 Townsend Street in the "G-1" Business District. SLU-2-01 was approved. The steam line in the ROW would interfere with a zero lot line (permitted in the "G-1" Business District). The location of the proposed vacations of the two BWL easements will not affect service by other utilities. The character of the area and future land use designation is a mixture of commercial, office and parking use and will not PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 2, 2002, Page 22 change as a result of this proposal. No significant impact on vehicular or pedestrian circulation is anticipated. Also, there will be no anticipated impact on the environment associated with the vacations of the two BWL easements. The location, character and extent are reasonable. Staff recommends approval of Act-6-02, with the vacations of the BWL easements at the SE corner of Allegan & Townsend Streets, contingent upon approval by resolution(s) of the Board of Water and Light Commissioners. In Committee it was moved, seconded and carried unanimously (3-0) to recommend approval of Act-6-02, SE Corner of Allegan & Townsend, Removal of Two BWL Easements. PLANNING BOARD ACTION on the motion was as follows: Ms. Patrick made a motion, seconded by Ms. Keene to recommend approval of Act-6-2002, SE Corner of Allegan & Townsend, Removal of Two BWL Easements. Frederick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Foster. . . Ave Keene . .Ave Patrick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ave Smith. . .Ave Ruge . .Ave On a Roll call vote, there were: Ayes: 6; Nays: 0; carried; unanimous. APPROVED. Next meeting, Tuesday, April 23, 2002, at 4:00 p.m. 316 N. Capitol Ave., Department Conference Room. 3. Committee of the Whole - None. 4. Executive Committee - None. PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 2, 2002, Page 23 C. REPORT FROM PLANNING MANAGER 1. Commissioner Training Workshops for the Historic District Commission. 2. On April 16, 2002 there will be a hearing for consideration of the Wolverine Pipe Line application, referred to the Planning Board by the City Council. The Board chose to have a special meeting at 7:00 p.m. on April 23, 2002 after the 6:00 p.m. Urban Development Committee meeting. D. PENDING ITEMS (future action required) 1. Zoning and Ordinance Committee a. Z-1-Yd, 1223 N. I urner St.,"H"Light Industrial District to"G-1"Business District b. 5Tabled February 11 19981l -5-98,401-407 E. Grand fiver,"F"Commercial District to'G-1"Business District(Tabled June 10, 1998) C. Z-8-2000,3901 S. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd.,"F"Commercial to"H" Light Industrial District(Tabled June 14,2000) d. Z-15-2000, 301 W. Lenawee Street, Professional Office to"G-1"Business District(Tabled January 17,2001 e. P-1-2001,Tentative Preliminary lat,Wexford Woods (Tabled June 13, May 9, 2001) f. PRD-2-01,"Crystal Woods", Planned Residential Neighborhood (Tabled August 15,2001) g. SLU-6-0 517-519 E. Grand River Ave., Church in"F-1"Commercial District (Tabled November 14,2001) h. SLU-8-01, 3000 W. Miller Road,Additional Parking for an Existing Church (Tabled November 14,2001) i. SLU-1-2002 1400 Block,W.Jolly Road,Special Land Use Permit-New Church 2. Urban Development committee a. Act-9-2000,201 E. Grand River Avenue, Proj. Sign Over ROW (Tabled June 27, 2000) b. Act-27-01,313 E. Grand River Ave. (Comfort Station), Market for Sale(Tabled November 27,2001) C. Act-2-02, Lansing Housing Commission Property, 310 Seymour,Acquisition for public purposes (Tabled February 26,2002) 3. Committee of the Whole 4. Planning Board 8. NEW BUSINESS 9. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON 10. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS Ms. Foster inquired about tabling the Comfort Station and stated that she would like to visit the property. Mr. Ruff stated the building is locked and the keys are with the Parks and Recreation Department. Mr. Ruge inquired about what criteria the Commission used in their ruling on the denial of the pipeline through Meridian Township. Mr. Ruff stated that he has a PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 2, 2002, Page 24 copy of the Public Service Commission's staff report for the pipeline, and that the report was later withdrawn. Mr. Ruff had requested information regarding the discussion of the withdrawal but was denied the information. He is now exploring other options for obtaining the information. 11. BOARD MEMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION REPORTS 12. ADJOURNMENT - Meeting was adjourned at 10:01 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James A. Ruff, Secretary, Planning Board PB Minutes.040202.wpd